The Dutch layer approach – a turn-of-the-century phenomenon or

fundamental approach to urban design and planning tasks?

WORKING PAPER FOR AESOP 2009 – DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION

Jeroen van Schaick and Ina Klaasen Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Architecture – Dep.Urbanism
j.vanschaick@tudelft.nl Julianalaan 132-134
+31 (0)15 2781367 2628 BL Delft
The Netherlands
Abstract

In 1998 a layer model that distinguished three layers of spatial planning tasks on the basis of
different planning horizons – substratum, networks and occupation - was introduced in the
national debate on spatial planning in the Netherlands. It was presented as a normative model
which provides a framework to make strategic choices between different long term spatial
planning and design tasks. It hit a nerve in spatial planning practice, initially in particular on a
national level, but later also on the provincial and municipal level. Since 1998, this model has
developed as an approach to spatial planning and design: the Dutch layer approach. In the
process it got transformed in different ways. Although many critiques and some analyses of the
approach can be found in literature on Dutch spatial planning, no studies have been published
that examine the development of the Dutch layer approach in detail. In this paper we aim to
provide insight in the development of the layer approach between 1998 and 2009 from both a
theoretical angle as well as that from its application in practice. We focus on the variations of the
layer approach that have been constructed since its introduction and the way in which these
variations influenced time-oriented thinking in spatial planning and design. Based on our
analysis we conclude our paper with a discussion on our title question: is the Dutch layer
approach a passing hype or does it represent a more fundamental approach to urban design and
planning tasks?

1. Introducing the Dutch layer approach as a time-oriented approach

1.1 Setting the stage

In 1996 De Hoog, Sijmons and Verschuren were asked to structure some fifty spatial plans and spatial
ideas on the future of the Netherlands as part of the research project Het Metropolitane Debat – the
metropolitan debate. They were asked to structure the projects in ‘plan families’ and in strategies.
Their answer in the report Laagland (De Hoog, Sijmons and Verschuren, 1998a; 1998b providing a
summary) was a stratified model which connected planning tasks to time horizons of spatial
transformation. The model provides a normative framework for strategic choices regarding Dutch
spatial planning tasks. As this paper will demonstrate, the model that emerged from the analysis hit a
nerve in spatial planning practice, initially in particular on a national level, but later also on the
provincial and municipal level where it quickly became known as the layer approach, a term we will
use in this text when not referring to the model presented in 1998.

De Hoog, Sijmons en Verschuren (1998b: 78) originally

“suggest to distinguish three ‘layers’ in the spatial organization of the Laagland (Lowland):
the layer of the substratum, the layer of the networks and the layer of the occupation pattern.
These layers know different ‘times’. …To these three layers we add the element of
coherence. We consider this coherence between the layers as the domain of spatial planning:
here we shoot an arrow through the strongly sectorally coloured problem definition on the
distinguished layers.”

1
Their main assumption was that the substratum physically transforms slower than the networks, which
in turn transform at a lower rate than the physical structures on the occupation layer. This assumption
led to the idea that the layers from bottom to top set priorities and conditions for spatial planning tasks
on the other layers. Table 1 shows how the analysis of the spatial plans and ideas connects to planning
and design tasks for the Netherlands. For each layer they also show which approaches are present in
the plans. In addition to these strategic components explained in verbal language, the layer model or
layer approach has an important visual component that exemplifies how these layers are perceived in
planning practice: for the substratum a map of soil and water, for the networks a map of the physical
infrastructure networks (with the exception of RPD (2000) which also shows soft infrastructure as part
of the network layer) and for the occupation a map of urbanization and green recreational areas.
(Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4) But the visual language used in relation to the layer approach is not limited to
maps. Schemes play an important role in the perception of the layer approach as a layered model
(Figure 5 and 6).

Design and planning tasks Approaches

Layer 1 Substratum - Dealing with the physical effects of - Nature engineering

climate change - Civil engineering
- Modernising the water management
system
Layer 2 Networks - Strengthening the position of the - Complexes approach (developing nodes
Netherlands in international networks for exchange of information and
- Control and steer the growth of mobility knowledge)
- Corridor approach (developing mainports
and hinterland connections)
Layer 3 Occupation - Accommodating spatial claims and - ‘Écology’-approach (An ecology defined
shrinkage in relation to values and as a locally characteristic ‘life-style-
attractivity environment’)
- Mold-Contramold approach (city vs.
landscape)
Coherence - Creating synergy between interventions - Conditioning spatial planning
- Facilitating spatial planning

Table 1 Design tasks and noted approaches as they appeared in the analysis of 50 plus Dutch spatial plans for the Netherlands.
Source: De Hoog, Sijmons, Verschuren, 1998b)

From 1998 onwards, the layer model got embedded in an already vivid discussion about the regional
level in planning, about the balance between local and national responsibility for spatial planning and
about the importance of water-related and infrastructure problems in spatial planning (see e.g. Ten
Cate 1998). At the turn of the century, the layer model started to play a prominent role in the yearly
explorations for a national planning agenda by the national spatial planning agency (RPD, 2000 &
2001). Over the next decade the layer model (lagenmodel) had been formalized as a planning approach
– layer approach or lagenbenadering - in national, provincial and local planning documents (Cammen
& De Klerk, 2003). Although the three layers remained the main ingredient, the layer approach was
often amended, adjusted and reinterpreted since (e.g. Provincie Overijssel, 2009).

Figure 1 The territory of the Randstad in three layers. This illustration of the layers of the substratum, of the
networks and of the occupation pattern (left to right) accompanied the original article in which the layer model was
proposed. (Source: De Hoog, Sijmons and Vercshuren, 1998b: 75)

2
Figure 2 Area design Leiden-Haarlem-Amsterdam. The first design application of the layer approach. From left to
right: (a) substratum: new conditions through water management: new drainage canals; (b) networks: new conditions
through infrastructure planning: nodes, regional public transport and work areas; (c) occupation: interactions
between red and green. (source: H+N+S, 1998: 38-40)

Figure 3 The layers substratum, networks and occupation analysing the Dutch situation at the end of the 20th century,
complemented by a compilation map in the Fifth Memorandum on Spatial Planning and the National Spatial Strategy
document. (source: VROM, 2001a and duplicated in VROM 2006)

3
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4 European spatial structure connected to the three layers (a) substratum, (b and c) networks and (d)
occupation. Map (a) visualises natural qualities and water management issues. Network-oriented map (b) addresses
accessibility and infrastructure, where network-oriented map (c) focuses on possible cooperation between cities in
urban networks. Map (d) focuses on the relation between pressure on land use changes and types of rural areas.
Source: RPD (2000: 57, 60, 62, 72)

4
Figure 5 One of the earliest visualisations of the Dutch layer model as a layered model instead of a set of maps. Source:
Provincie Noord-Holland (2002)

Figure 6 (a), (b) and (c) Peter Dauvellier in cooperation with H2Ruimte visualises the layer approach for the urban
region Haaglanden as part of a step-by-step cyclical planning process. (a, left) Shown is one of 4 quadrants of the cycle:
Verkennen (Exploring). (b, top) illustrates how to deal with relations between the layers; (c) illustrates that each layer
can be elaborated into detail. Source: MIRUP (2003)

5
1.2 The aim of this paper

This paper has been developed in the context of a larger research project that identifies expert opinions
on time-oriented urban design and planning. The analysis of the layer approach as presented here is an
exemplar of the way in which mainstream urban and regional planning and design deals with
incorporating time aspects in spatial planning practices. The larger study contrasts the layer approach,
which we discuss here, with time-oriented urban design and planning approaches that deal with a
different concept of time. The latter are concerned with the accommodation of daily, weekly, monthly
and annually cyclic societal and ecological processes within the urban system: processes with a
relative small temporal grain (Klaasen, 2004; Drewe, 2005).

This paper is explorative in nature. While most critiques of the layer approach focus on its application,
we choose to focus our critique on the perception of the layer approach in planning and design circles.
Following Vonk-Noordegraaf (2003), we use in this paper the term ‘approach’ rather than ‘concept’ to
characterize the layer approach. However, we add on to this that we see the layer approach as a
conceptual framework, i.e. a framework for spatial concepts. Considering that the Dutch layer
approach as conceptual framework for spatial planning can be interpreted in many different ways, we
will focus on the following:

• What variations of the original layer model have been constructed since 1998?
• In what ways have these variations enriched or neglected time-oriented thinking in urban
design and planning?

To explore these questions, we have chosen a combination of literature study and in-depth interviews
with a number of those involved in the implementation of the layer approach in different planning
practices. This paper mainly builds on the literature study. Although the interviews have been helpful
in making sense of the literature, the qualitative data from the interviews will be elaborated elsewhere.
To structure the exploration of the main research question, the empirical part of this paper (sections 2
and 3) explores two analytical-interpretative viewpoints:
• The trends that can be distilled from policy documents and other documents from planning
practice
• Variations in the interpretation of the theoretical basis of the Dutch layer approach

1.3 Literature review

As we will describe below, several authors have emphasised the popularity of the layer approach in
Dutch policy documents on spatial planning of the last decade. Its popularity extends from national,
provincial to local levels of government. Despite its popularity, criticism has also developed both in
practice and in academic circles and in the last years the popularity of the approach as a central
planning philosophy seems to be subsiding. (see e.g. the Randstad 2020-2040 vision by VROM, 2008)
But still, there are no inventories available on planning documents that use this layer approach or other
layer-like approaches and few studies exist that thoroughly analyse the Dutch layer approach as
introduced above. Below, we outline those accounts in which the Dutch layer approach has been
evaluated and analysed, and we briefly identify a number of other stratified models in urban planning
literature. Although we cannot claim to be complete, few more studies exist than mentioned here.

There are many more stratified models available in the literature on urban planning than the Dutch
layer approach we discuss in this paper. Van Schaick (2005) analysed a series of four other stratified
models. His analysis is based on a comparison between a model of “social space” by Lefebvre
(1974(1991)), a model of a “space of flows” by Castells (1996), a model of the “network city” by
Dupuy (1991, 2008; see figure 7b) and a model of the city as it is seen in urban design (Heeling,
Meyer and Westrik, 2002; see figure 7a). An important conclusion was that the strength of stratified
models that try to integrate societal questions with physical-spatial questions lies in the underlying
time-concept and the way they deal with network concepts. Other operational examples of stratified

6
models in urban planning include Trancik’s model of urban design approaches (Trancik, 1980) and the
Urbs-Civitas-Topos triad as it is used by the Dutch Scientific Council program on Urbanization and
Urban Culture (Jansen, Leerssen & Taverne, 2003)
.

Figure 7a and 7b The stratified urban planning models by Heeling et al (2002)(left) and Dupuy (1991 & 2008)(right)

The landscape architect Dirk Sijmons is often seen as one of the founding fathers of the Dutch layer
approach (see De Hoog, Sijmons and Verschuren, 1998a). In a retrospective chapter Sijmons
addresses “the further adventures of the layer model” (Sijmons, 2002: 135-150). Sijmons (ibid) speaks
– almost - consistently about the ‘layer model’ in stead of the ‘layer approach’ when he means the
original version from 1998. The layer model was first meant as a “strategic proposal to order a
multitude of spatial tasks and projects”. Strategic in the sense that not everything is equally important,
but that from this ordering would arise a new logic of prioritizing one project or task over the other; a
new logic of which task would belong to which level of government. The basis for this logic was the
planning horizon of these tasks, although indications for these horizons differ per publication and
interpretation. “It was a working philosophy, a strategic model, a planning concept. Since then it went
its own way” (Sijmons, 2002: 146). Sijmons describes how he is slightly surprised by the popularity of
the model after 1998; especially since “the layer concept is an agreement in the here and now, without
pretentions of universality and eternal value. At another time or at another scale other priorities will
fit.” (ibid.) In the following part of his text, Sijmons distinguishes between two directions in which the
layer model mutated. Along the first direction, exemplified by the Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 2000
(spatial explorations; RPD, 2001) the model became “heavier”. Along the second line of development,
exemplified by the Fifth Memorandum on Spatial Planning (VROM, 2001a), the model was slimmed
down.

Sijmons (2002) signals that the ‘heavy’ line of thinking tries to develop the layer model as both a
descriptive and an explanatory model grounded in history. Sijmons states that this translation of the
normative character of the 1998-model, ignores the strategic component of the layer model as a whole,
including planning tasks on each layer. He signals that the ‘weighting’ of the layer model, especially
in its ‘substratum’ layer makes the model inflexible and ‘bottom-heavy’. Sijmons is even more critical
of the development he signals in the Fifth Memorandum on Spatial Planning. In his view, it is a dead-
end to develop the layer model as a neutral instrument for editorial purposes, in particular, when the

7
approach is subsequently abandoned in the concrete spatial vision presented in the planning document.
The Social-Economic Advisory Council SER sees it differently. They advice positively on the layer
approach as included in the Fifth Memorandum and see it as an important basis for an integral vision
of spatial quality (SER, 2001). Although in line with this positive review of the layer approach,
Teunissen (2002) still sees much room for improvement. He formulates the following focal points for
the further development of the layer approach: (1) spatial quality and the layer approach, (2)
interactions on and between layers, (3) complex interaction of highly dynamic and less dynamic layers,
(4) the layer approach as instrument for plan development and the shaping of coalitions, and (5) the fit
between development-oriented planning (ontwikkelingsplanologie) and the layer approach.

In 2006 Sijmons is stronger in his disapproval than in 2002: “The layer approach is meant as a
contribution to the political-administrative steering of the ‘spatial business’… it was a story about a
subsidiarity. But it has often been used as a description of reality. That was a big mistake. They
confused a planning concept, which it is, with a kind of director’s trick to go through the same
material in a new battle order.” (Hajer, Sijmons & Feddes, 2006: 41) And later on in the book: “I am
happy we invented it and that we applied it a couple of times in a nice way, and maybe we’ll use it
again, but you shouldn’t make it obligatory” (Hajer, Sijmons & Feddes, 2006: 55).

Zonneveld gives two explanations for the rift between the layer approach as analytical framework and
the content of spatial policies in the Fifth Memorandum. On the one hand, Zonneveld (2005: 10-11)
explains, there was an internal professional dispute on the approach. On the other hand, “it was
impossible to carry [the layer approach] through because large, spatially relevant policy domains are
not part of the Fifth Memorandum or indeed any spatial planning memorandum.” In the end,
politically, the Memorandum could only limit itself to policies with regard to occupation patterns,
more in particular to containing urban development. This rift seems to have had significant
consequences for the further life of the layer approach in spatial planning practices.

In their work on the history of Dutch spatial planning, Hans van der Cammen and Len de Klerk
reconstruct the rise of the layer approach as part of the discourse around the turn of the century in their
chapter on “networks [or networking] in the new century”. Their introduction of that chapter indicates
the unease of the profession with developments at the end of the 20th century: “Apparently the societal
dynamics exceeded the rate of adaptation of the physical environment and spatial planning did not
seem to be capable to bridge that gap.” (Cammen & De Klerk, 2003:363) In this chapter, they explain
that although the underlying reasoning of the conceptual framework might be faulty, it is a framework
that carries three major design and planning tasks for the 21st century: the spatial dimension of water
management, the spatial consequences of increased mobility and new spatial concepts for urbanization
and for so-called ‘natural’ landscapes. But their analysis of the layer approach does not delve deeper
than that. They limit their final remark on the layer approach to its increased popularity at the turn-of-
the-century.

Vonk-Noordegraaf (2003) takes a different approach. Instead of positioning the layer approach in the
discourse, she analyses the value of the approach in comparison to three other ‘area approaches’
(gebiedsbenaderingen). Her analytical framework is built around the normative premises, vision and
method of each approach that result in a concrete product of the approach. Although she recognizes
that there are many possible interpretations of the layer approach, she focuses her analysis of the layer
approach on the version as it was developed in RPD (2001) (Vonk-Noordegraaf 2003: 29 & 35). She
concludes that for the approach to deliver concrete results it is necessary that involved actors subscribe
to the underlying rules-of-the-game of hierarchical planning in which planning tasks on the layer
‘substratum’ are conditional to those on the layer ‘networks’ which are conditional to those on the
layer ‘occupation’. She signals two reasons why the layer approach is often abandoned after being
used in the analytical phase of a planning process. Firstly, Vonk-Noordegraaf states, the conceptual
framework offered by the approach is often seen as too rigorous to be applied in real-life planning,
especially in an intersectoral planning processes. Secondly, it lacks in theorization about what to do in
an urban planning process after having done the analysis using the layer approach. She finds that this

8
often requires a translation into and/or a combination with other conceptual frameworks to result in
concrete planning products. Although deemed valuable for spatial analysis (Vonk-Noordegraaf 2003:
89), Vonk-Noordegraaf concludes that the layer approach, as she analysed it, is “not of value” to
create a spatial plan (Vonk-Noordegraaf 2003: 41). In addition, when she compares the layer approach
to other supposedly integral area-based approaches, she concludes that integration often means safe-
guarding an agenda on a certain spatial quality based in other fields of expertise than spatial planning.
Werksma et al (2007) have a more positive and pragmatic attitude towards the layer approach. They
sketch the possibilities offered by adapting the initial layer approach for practical purposes. Their
point of view is that the layer approach offers possibilities for interdisciplinary and intersectoral
planning processes.

Hugo Priemus analyses the layer approach from the viewpoint of “changing preconditions for
planning”. Rather than an analysis of planning practices, he critically reviews the theoretical basis of
the layer approach. He sets out “to amend this approach and to propose a network approach, as a
method to consider spatial variants and spatial economic investments alternatives within the
framework of green, blue, traffic, ICT and urban networks” (Priemus 2004: 268). In a second paper
(Priemus 2007), he extends his argumentation for this amendment. Priemus’ main critique concerns
the hierarchy between the layers of the layer approach. He describes and substantiates that the theory
of differing spatial transformation rates at each layer is not supported by real life spatial dynamics.
The basis for his amendment of the layer approach is based on reciprocal relationships between
layered networks on multiple scales: (1) networks of the substratum (blue and green), (2) networks for
transport, ICT, water and energy, (3) urban networks (both the co-operating cities as well as the
dynamic spatial pattern of urban functions). Van Schaick & Klaasen (2007) develop Priemus’
argumentation further. They focus on the importance of also including temporo-spatial activity
patterns, i.e. user patterns, in the making of spatial plans and designs. In fact, this critique connects the
debate on the layer approach into a whole range of recent literature on network thinking in planning
(Drewe, 2004; Dupuy, 2008; Albrechts & Mandelbaum, 2005).

This short literature review clearly reveals that the layer approach is not a stand-alone framework for
planning, but that it is part of a wider discourse in spatial planning in which professionals and
academics are trying to make sense of spatial planning and design tasks against a background of social
and economic changes. Perhaps for that reason, the Dutch layer approach triggers a value-laden
discussion either supporting or heavily criticizing the layer approach as a relevant planning approach.
However, the arguments for both positive and negative critiques often remain meagre and often
disregard the variations on the original layer approach.

2. The layer approach since 1998

2.1 Introduction

In this section we describe how the perception of the layer approach has developed. We aim to clarify
the diversity of perceptions of the possible workings of the layer approach along three lines of analysis:
key documents (2.2) and the embedment in planning practice (2.3).

2.2 Key documents

The Dutch layer approach has become a widely accepted approach in mainstream spatial planning
through a number of key documents that explicitly promote it. The list of key documents in this
paragraph (table 2) shows that the discussion on the layer approach has been largely practice-driven
with a key role for national planning circles. As might be expected, a closer look at these documents
shows that the interpretation of the layer model as a layer approach has been inconsistent from the
moment of introduction of the layer approach. Each key document in the process of adoption of the
approach in planning circles shows new interpretations and/or roles for the layer model.

9
Key documents 1998-2008
Report Laagland
(De Hoog, Sijmons &
Verschuren, 1998a)
VINEX-studie H+N+S: Leiden-
Haarlem-Amsterdam
(H+N+S, 1998)
Ruimtelijke verkenningen 1999
(RPD, 2000)
Ruimtelijke verkenningen 2000
(RPD, 2001)
Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke
Ordening (Fifth Memorandum
on Spatial Planning)
(VROM, 2001a)
Leve(n)de Stad
(3 volumes of essays)
(VROM, 2001b)
Handleiding MIRUP
(Stadsgewest Haaglanden, 2003)
Website www.ruimtexmilieu.nl
Website www.ruimtexmilieu.nl
Year Position of the layer approach
1998 Key organizing principle for the
analysis of future spatial plans;
steering principle for prioritization
of plans
1998 Organizing principle of the design
study
2000 First official national planning
document in which the layer model
is mentioned, one of several
discourses relevant to European
planning, amended with a cultural
layer
2001 Central to the argumentation to put
‘substratum’ or ‘undergound’ firmly
on the policy agendas for the
coming decade
2001 Analytical framework in the
introduction of the Memorandum
2001 Incorporated and interpreted in a
series of essays on ‘networked
urbanization’
2003 Key element of the step-by-step
planning guide
2004 Key element of the set of planning
version instruments on this website (initially
as key organizing principle of the
proposed approach for integrating
policy agendas)
2006 One of the analytical instruments in
version environmentally aware spatial
planning processes
Reception of the document
First document presenting the layer
model, triggered a discourse on the
layer approach
Celebrated as the first and most
complete application of the layer
approach
Not well known with regard to the
layer approach. Key document for
literature on European Spatial
Planning.
Well received, still often referenced;
perceived as the first document
using the layer approach on a
national planning level
Received with wide criticism,
rewritten after shift in government
as Nota Ruimte, role for layer
approach hardly changed in new
version
This document gave a first taste of
the future interpretations of the layer
approach; vision document for the
Fifth Memorandum
Key document for further
development of guides to spatial
planning with an environmental
agenda. Basis for website ruimte x
milieu.
Used in local planning practices;
website redesigned between 2006
and 2008 to focus on spatial quality
rather than on integrating the layers
of the layer approach
The website became too complex
according to project leader and
content developers

Table 2 Key documents in the development of the layer approach between 1998 and 2008

2.3 The apparent omnipresence of the layer approach

The layer model can be found in many policy documents on spatial planning. On a national planning
level it has been present since the Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 1999 (see figure 8), and subsequently in
those from 2000, which is regarded as the birth ground of the layer ‘approach’. The Fifth
Memorandumon Spatial Planning (VROM, 2001a) and the National Spatial Strategy (VROM, 2006)
adopted the layer model in its analytical chapter. The most recent document from the Ministry on
Spatial Planning Randstad 2040 again refers to the layer approach as one of its building blocks
although not as central as before: “For a sustainable Randstad it is necessary to properly balance
between the three dimensions of sustainability (people, planet, profit) and between the three layers
from the layer approach” (VROM, 2008: 71). An important administrative level at which the layer
approach in its fullest sense has been adopted is at the provincial and regional level. Especially in the
provincial plans (streekplannen) just after the turn of the century its philosophy if not the approach
itself is almost omnipresent (e.g. Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2002; Provincie Noord-Holland, 2002; see
for an overview PBL, 2008). But the layer model, if not the layer approach, has also been adopted in
many places on a local level, either in municipal structure plans (e.g. Gemeente Amsterdam 2003) or
in vision documents on future local developments (e.g. Driehoek RZG, 2003). Although not deemed

10
applicable on this level of scale by Sijmons (2002) - amongst others - the layer model has often been
used in plans of smaller municipalities (see e.g. http://www.logo-dcmr.nl or http://www.vng.nl >
search [MILO]; acc. July 2009). Even if it is not always present in the final policy document, we
suspect the layer model has often played a role in the preparatory process. The layer approach was
even used in an example exercise in the syllabus for a 2009 geography exam for secondary school
students: “Building in the Zuidplaspolder or not?” (CEVO, 2007).

Figure 8 The first occurrence of the layer approach in an official, although explorative, policy document. The layer
approach is embedded in a whole range of discourses related to the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
and adapted to include “the cultural dimension”. Was the layer approach not viable to begin with? Source: RPD
(2000)

Although the presence of the layer approach in policy documents is an important indicator, another
trend might be more significant. Professional courses, guidelines and handbooks have eagerly adopted
‘the’ layer approach, or an interpretation of it, as part of the toolbox for practical spatial planning, but
also in related fields such as transportation and environmental planning (see table 3). Although this
seems to be pointing towards the adoption of the layer approach by the profession, a second look at the
initiatives learns that guides and courses are or were initially supported by the Ministry of Spatial
Planning or by the Province of Zuid-Holland. For a more detailed review of some of these methods –
MILO and LOGO – we refer to Flipse (2007).

Examples of professional Type of instrument Organization Web reference

promotion of the layer (accessed July 2009)
approach
Handreiking LOGO Guide for Improving DCMR Milieudienst http://www.logo-dcmr.nl
environmental quality Rijnmond; Provincie
through cooperation Zuid-Holland
MIRUP Handreiking voor Guide for municipalities Stadsgewest Haaglanden http://duurzaambouwen.senternove
Milieu in Ruimtelijke to make environment m.nl/praktijk/164-mirup.html
Plannen part of the planning
(Guide for Environment in process; Basis for
Spatial Plans) Ruimte X Milieu
Handreiking MILO Guide for Projectbureau MILO at http://www.vng.nl/smartsite.dws?id
Milieukwaliteit In de Environmental quality VNG (Vereniging =63966&ch=DEF;
LeefOmgeving of the living Nederlandse Gemeenten) http://www.stadenmilieu.nl;
(partially based on LOGO) environment and Ministry VROM http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=Do
cs/milieu/handreikingMILO.pdf
Ruimte X Milieu website Guide for sustainable Commisioned by Ministry http://www.ruimtexmilieu.nl/
(Space and Environment) area development of VROM and
Stadsgewest Haaglanden
Project COOK Guide for SKB Stichting http://www.skbodem.nl/index.asp?id
Communicating On the Kennisontwikkeling =17117&page=inhoud.asp
Quality of the Kennisoverdracht Bodem
Environment
Leren voor duurzame Multi-year learning Provincie Zeeland & www.zmf.nl ;
ontwikkeling program on several Zeeuwse Milieufederatie http://kreeft.zeeland.nl/zeesterdoc/Z
(Learning for sustainable tools for planning with BI-O /ZEE/ZEE0/8001/
development) sustainability 800114_1.pdf

11
IPO advice on regional
structure visions
Cursus Milieu en
Ruimtelijke Ordening
(Course Environment and
Spatial Planning)
Duurzaam Bouwen website
(Sustainable Building
website)
Promotion in press releases,
websites and lobby
Hoe Maak Ik Een
Structuurvisie (How do I
make a stucture plan)
Sustainable Urbanism
Advice on content, IPO (InterProvinciaal www.ipo.nl/scripts/download2.php?
process and Overleg) publication=658
implementation of
regional structure
visions
Professional training Geoplan http://www.geoplan.nl/home/ruimtel
ijke-ordening/
Ruimtelijke_ordening_algemeen/mil
ieu-en-ruimtelijke-ordening/
Portal to information on SenterNovem (Agency for http://duurzaambouwen.senternove
building sustainably Ministry of Economic m.nl (until 1 August 2009, then
Affairs) moved to www.vrom.nl )
n/a Provinciale http://www.natuurenmilieunederlan
milieufederaties d.nl
Consultancy Consultancy firms: VHP, http://www.structuurvisies.nl
instrument/ Urban Management
advertisement Consultany, Urbanet
Consultancy Consultancy firm http://www.builddesk.nl/gebiedsont
instrument/ BuildDesk wikkeling/duurzame+stedenbouw
advertisement

Table 3 Examples of promotion of the layer approach in professional circles.

3. Please, may the real Dutch layer approach stand up

3.1 Variations in the interpretation of the layer approach

The analysis so far shows that there has been a strong drive, in particular from national planning
circles, to promote the layer approach. However, it also shows that in that process the layer approach
gets adapted, amended, recombined and at times marginalised. In this section we focus on variations
of interpretations of the layer approach. Hagens (2006) gives an example why it is important to pay
attention to these variations. A special-interest group speaks up: “Reasoning from the layer approach
the area [X] is not suitable for urbanization. We do not understand why the State gave permission for
development here. The neighbourhood will come where in fact it can’t be …. local government keeps
saying it applied the layer approach, but the first ideas show that that is not true” (derived from
Hagens 2006: 26). In the literature we have found five issues around which variations get constructed:
• Level of scale, both of time and of space
• Hierarchy of planning priorities
• The different roles contributed to the Dutch layer approach
• The reinterpretation of the content of a layer and of the amount of layers
• Constructed histories of the underlying theory

3.2 Temporal scale and spatial scale

Time is said to be at the basis of the layer approach (De Hoog, Sijmons and Verschuren, 1998a). One
would then expect a firm theoretical grounding of the concept. Several authors signal that the link
between layers and particular time scales or horizons is not valid. For example, Priemus (2004, 2007),
and Cammen & De Klerk (2003) take this point as one of their main reasons to criticize the layer
approach. Van Schaick & Klaasen (2007) criticize the concept of time in the layer approach on other
grounds, namely the complete neglect of small temporal grains that are decisive for the quality of daily
life. Moreover, we can find very different interpretations of the temporal scale in applications of the
approach (see figure 9 and table 4). Some of these variations can be explained by the particular
document focussing on one or a combination of the following: planning horizons, market cycles, the
time necessary to negate interventions in physical space, observed transformation dynamics or as a
metaphor for how untouchable a layer should be for spatial interventions. In most of these documents
an explicit justification for choosing one time indicator over another (e.g. 5-50 yrs in stead of 5-10 yrs)

12
is absent, although the hierarchy of time scales remains the same throughout all documents. Often the
temporal logics are not linked to spatial scale, with the exception of RPD (2000; see figure 10).

In addition to the inconsistencies about temporal scale that we found, the appropriate spatial scale for
the application of the layer approach is a matter of debate. Sijmons has been very strong on stating that
the regional scale is the only appropriate scale for the Dutch layer approach as developed in 1998
(Sijmons, 2002). Still, many accounts prevail of application on much lower spatial scale levels. The
MIRUP-guide, for example, uses a fictive example on the neighbourhood level (Stadsgewest
Haaglanden, 2003). On the other extreme, the RPD (2000) considers the relevant spatial scale levels
up to the “mondial” scale (see figure 10). In addition, the “grade of impact” which the RPD suggest in
that figure would imply to consider multiple scales on each layer and on each scale multiple layers
with different prioritizations. This might be in line with Dirk Sijmons’ suggestion cited in the literature
review above that new scales would require new agreements on prioritization. We may question if the
application of the layer approach on many different spatial scale levels without a fundamental shift
with regard to the temporal logics of the layers has lead to inappropriate results.

Figure 9 (a), (b) and (c) Dynamics in the layer approach in schematic form: (a, left) Provincie Overijssel (2009; image
by H2Ruimte and ® beeldleveranciers.nl); (b, right) Senternovem http://duurzaambouwen.senternovem.nl/begrippen/
266-lagenbenadering.html (accessed July 2009; translation text from bottom to top: substratum – low-dynamic:
spatial carrier; structure – middle-dynamic: spatial structure; fill-in - highly dynamic: spatial organization); (c,
bottom) Werksma (2002)

13
Figure 10 Indicative grades of the impact of the scale levels on the layers and vice versa. Source: RPD (2000: 112)

Source Dynamics on the Dynamics on the Dynamics on the

occupation layer network layer substratum layer
De Hoog, Sijmons, Verschuren 25-50 yrs 50-100 yrs 100-500 yrs
(1998b)
RPD (2000) Low rate of change Moderate rate of change High rate of change
RPD (2001) Not mentioned Not mentioned 50 - >500
VROM (2001a) Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
Provincie Noord-Holland (2002) 1 generation/cycle on the Faster than substratum >100 years
building market
Sijmons (2002) on temporal scales 5-10 yrs 10-30 yrs 20-200 yrs
Sijmons (2002) on planning 5-15 yrs 15-50 yrs 50-100 yrs
horizons
Werksma (2002) 10-40 yrs 25-100 yrs 50-500 yrs
VROM (2006) Not mentioned Not mentioned Slow/longterm
www.ruimtexmilieu.nl (2006) 10-40 yrs 20-80 yrs >100 yrs
Senternovem (n/a) Highly dynamic Moderately dynamic Slightly dynamic
Provincie Overijssel (2009) 5-50 yrs 50-100 yrs >100 yrs

Table 4 Dynamics relevant to the three layers of the layer approach found in the literature. Note that the meaning can
differ. Sometimes life span, sometimes planning horizon, sometimes transformation time, often a non-explicit mix of
these.

3.3 Hierarchy or not?

A major point of disagreement in the debate on the layer approach is the perceived necessity or
dysfunctionality of promoting a hierarchy of planning tasks on the basis of the layer approach. Hagens
(2006: 25; citing Ministry VROM 2006) provides us with a typical example from the Nota Ruimte: “of
the three layers …not one is most important for spatial development”; while the policy document
states not far below: “at the same time it is inherent to the layer approach that the bottom layer sets
conditions for those on top”.

Although De Hoog et al (1998b), the RPD (2000) and Sijmons (2002) explain that a hierarchical
planning strategy is a fundamental property of the layer approach, outside these documents and within
the spatial planning domain little has come of this claim. Recently, The Netherlands Institute for
Spatial Research explicitly chose not to use the layer approach to formulate “spatial questions of the
future for the current policy agenda” (Schuur, Janssen, Klaver, Pieterse & Snellen, 2007). The authors

14
of that explorative document gave two reasons. Firstly, despite cartographic and stylistic advantages in
particular in design processes, there is no direct relation between the layer on which a development
occurs and its urgency in policy making. According to the authors, this makes it difficult to develop
policy recommendations from an analysis based on the layer approach. Secondly, the layer approach
complicates matters, because it simplifies functional distinctions, hierarchical relations between layers
and the differences in rate of transformation. For this reason it offers little room, the authors claim, to
think about future spatial questions in the long term.

Two alternatives have developed in practice. One is the neutral application of the layer model as an
organizing instrument for analytical maps. This has been heavily criticised by both the original
developers of the layer model and in the wider planning debate after the publication of the Fifth
Memorandum on Spatial Planning. But many municipalities still use the layer approach in this way.
The other alternative is to disregard or marginalise the hierarchy from the original 1998-model and to
focus on the integrative possibilities that the approach offers. In this alternative, one uses the layer
approach as a way to facilitate integrating sectoral interests in spatial planning processes. Examples of
this approach can be found on the website www.ruimtexmilieu.nl (accessed July 2009) and in training
and consultancy practices as those promoted by Geoplan (see table 3) in Werksma (2002) and
Werksma et al (2007). In their view it is an integrating tool to put sustainability issues and
interdisciplinary planning back on the agenda of spatial planning. However, the transformation of the
website www.ruimtexmilieu.nl in the last three years exemplifies that the layer approach in itself is not
suitable to carry this on its own. It needed to be adapted to incorporate the problems encountered in
concrete planning processes and lately to incorporate urban quality as a central criterium.

3.4 The different roles contributed to the Dutch layer approach

Much ambiguity prevails with regard to the role that the layer approach plays in urban planning and
design. Several authors (e.g. Sijmons, 2002; Van Schaick and Klaasen, 2007) have paid attention to
the mixing of different roles within single planning documents. But many more accounts exist of
planning instances where one choice or the other has prevailed and excluded another, at times more
suitable, type of layer approach. The following ambiguities about the roles of the layer approach are
central to this process:

1. Is working with layers a model (i.e. reduction of physical reality) or an approach (giving
guidelines for a planning process) or a metaphor (each layer indicates a set of actors, a set of
interests or a set of tasks)?
2. Is the approach descriptive (what constitutes our city region) or analytical (either a plan
analysis or situation analysis) or strategic (instrument for searching, qualifying, prioritizing
and choosing certain solutions over others)?
3. Is the approach integrative (framework for co-operation or negotiation between sectors and/or
stakeholders) or separating (e.g. stimulating possibly conflicting sectoral policy agendas)?
4. Is the approach a communication tool (facilitating participation by laymen) or an editorial tool
(in particular for planning documents) or a building block (for a future policy) or a leading
philosophy (influencing agenda setting and the development of new ideas)?

While the simplicity of the model suggest an easy framing of planning problems, these ambiguities
show that it is in fact not as simple as it seems.

3.5 Additional layers and variations in the choice of layers

Since the layer approach has been analysed and applied, it has also been adapted. Two examples
demonstrate the major ways in which it has been transformed and amended. Remarkably, there is not
much debate on these transformations. RPD (2000) added a “cultural dimension” as fourth layer to the
layer approach to connect it better to other discourses in European spatial planning (see figure 8).

15
The Province of Overijssel (2009) demonstrates a recent example where the original layer approach
got transformed into something new, both adding a layer and transforming the content of the layers.
Starting out from the original layer approach principles in Figure 9a, the vision document ends up with
four new layers based on the characteristics of this specific area (see figure 11):
• The natural layer
• The layer of agricultural landscape
• The urban layer
• The pleasure and leisure layer

Figure 11 The maps representing the four layers used by the Province of Overijssel in its Regional Spatial Vision 2009.
Source: Provincie Overijssel (2009)

3.6 Constructed histories

The recent history of the layer approach, the last decade, can be traced through practices and policy
documents. The previous section used these tangible sources. However, to discover why the large
variety in interpretations of the layer approach developed, we also have to construct the history of the
layer approach from a theoretical point of view. Constructed histories are important, because they
influence, both consciously and unconciously, the present interpretation of the layer approach. We
don’t claim that these constructed histories have not played a role in the development of the layer
approach. But they show that the development of a planning approach such as the layer approach is
not linearly organised from origin to end result and that legitimating-after-the-fact has played a role
after 1998. This paragraph aims to unravel both a number of consciously constructed as well as some
unconsciously constructed histories of the layer approach. We have found four, often intertwined,
histories that have been formulated after the initial 1998-proposal of the layer approach.

Firstly, the history of the layer approach has been constructed as a history of conceptual frameworks
from ecology. Priemus (2007: 671) is an example of this: “as the predecessor of the Layers Approach,
the Strategy of Two Networks [Tjallingi, 1996] is interesting.” The casco-approach (Sijmons, 1991) is
often seen as the predecessor of the layer approach. However, Sijmons himself distinguishes them
clearly: “[in the casco-concept] time is a decisive factor, as in the later layer approach, but the casco-
concept focuses on a different scale level and thus has different consequences. Where the layer
approach distinguishes three layers, the casco-concept is meant to be applied at layer 3, the occupation
layer.” (Hajer, Sijmons & Feddes 2006: 40)

Secondly, several authors have developed the idea that the layer approach is or might be embedded in
a history of geography. RPD (2001), for example, sees it as a fusion of theoretical frameworks from
physical geography - derived from Braudel (1949) - and social geography – derived from Vidal de la
Blache (1922), on the basis of ecological theory. Braudel’s concept of longue durée is seen as an
important source of inspiration for the logic on transformation dynamics that is part of the layer

16
approach. The second idea has been marginalized in spatial planning applications. Based on the work
of the geographer Paul Vidal de la Blache (1845-1918), this second idea looks at the world in a
holistic way as a system constituted by the relation between people and their environment. In
Principes de Geographie, Vidal de la Blache (1922) distinguishes (a) la repartition hommes sur globe,
(b) les formes des civilization and (c) la circulation. According to Buttimer (1971) this translates to a
research agenda for social geography following a three-tier structure: (a) the analysis of density,
dispersal and mobility of populations, (b) the analysis of the way in which the human species adapts
its natural environment to its existential needs and (c) the analysis of transport and communication.
Looking at the basic principles coming from Braudel and those from Vidal de la Blache, Braudel’s
ideas - distinguishing layers based on transformation dynamics – are more dominant in the
development of the layer approach in the Netherlands.

Thirdly, the history of the layer approach can be considered as a history of planning discourses. As
such it can be seen as a counter-reaction to a spatial planning that focuses on the occupation layer.
Another consideration is that it might be a shift from approaches based on generic spatial concepts (e.g.
Het Groene Hart – the Green Heart of the Randstad) to approaches focussing on the planning process.
Part of this shift is changes in the role that specialists (e.g. soil experts or traffic experts) might play in
spatial planning. Typical for looking at the history of the layer approach in this way is that one
recognizes the principles of the approach also in other approaches. For example, the MILO-guide
(VNG 2004: 23; also see table 3): “In that sense, the National Package Sustainable Urbanism speaks
about underlayer, plan structure and environment types. Also the Rotterdam-based method
Environment in its Place with his ecological network, public transport and the related area types can
be considered as an example of the layer approach. A likewise approach is also part of the Nature and
Environmental Policy Plan 2030 by the municipality of Maastricht”. Part of such a view on the history
of the layer approach is to consider the layer approach as one step in a shift towards dominant
discourses in planning on network-thinking and planning on sustainability principles (compare VROM
2008).

A fourth possible construction of the history of the layer approach has not been addressed often in the
literature on the Dutch layer approach (see also Van Schaick and Klaasen 2007). In our view, the
development of mapping layers in urban design and planning since the 1960s can be seen as an
important factor in the adoption of the Dutch layer approach in urban planning practice, by both
specialists and planners. An early example is the work by landscape architect Ian McHarg (1969),
although layered mapping can be traced back to much earlier dates (e.g. Harness, 1837). Since the
1990s both geography and spatial planning have seen a growing influence in using computational tools
in spatial analysis and in spatial design, in particular Geographic Informations Systems (GIS),
Computer Aided Design (CAD) and graphically-oriented software such as Adobe Photoshop and
Adobe Illustrator. These software families use the principle of layers as organizing structure of data
and of maps. This representational characteristic and in particular the relative ease with which multiple
layers can be developed and combined, has gained much ground in spatial planning and design in
recent years. While other constructed histories focus on the content of the layer approach, this possibly
constructed history introduces the principle of superimposition itself as part of the history of the Dutch
layer approach. This principle offers a range of possibilities to develop visual relations between spatial
elements and to deconstruct and recombine spatial phenomena into as many layers as necessary to
extract relevant information on individual situations.

4. Conclusion and discussion

In this paper we analysed existing literature on an approach to spatial design and planning that was
introduced in the Netherlands in 1998: the Dutch layer approach. We concluded from our literature
review that so far only a few studies had examined the layer approach, few of those paying attention in
detail to its development, nearly none of them covering the developments of the approach in practice
after 2006. This stimulated us to analyse this layer approach, from both a theoretical angle and that of

17
the applications in practice, focusing on the variations of the layer approach that have been constructed
since its introduction and the way in which these variations influenced time-oriented thinking in
design and planning.

Sections 2 and 3 provide answers to the question which variations of the original layer model had been
constructed since 1998. These variations are variations over time, but also variations that exist side-by-
side. These variations are often related to the diversity of roles the layer approach has played in
relation to a particular planning process, and is exemplified by the different ways in which the
approach gets visualised – or not visualised – in planning documents. In practice we recognize a
pragmatic plurality of interpretations of the layer approach. In particular, some variations get
constituted by the practical adoption of the approach by planning specialists playing a prominent role,
such as soil specialists or water specialists. Other discriminating factors are the hierarchical
prioritisation of planning tasks and confusion about appropriate levels of scale for the successive
layers. Often though, a justification of variations on the 1998-model is completely lacking. The
number of variations also seems to be linked to the popularity of the layer approach in practice, the
latter stimulated by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment by promoting the
layer approach in courses and pointers from umbrella organizations in spatial planning This obviously
did not result, however, in a consistent use of the approach. A comparable inconsistency is shown by
the various in hindsight constructed theoretical backgrounds of the layer approach.

Our second focus point regarded time-oriented thinking. Thinking about time was a fundament for the
original 1998-model, based as this model was on the differences in transformation pace of the layers,
and on what the latter meant for prioritizing some planning and design tasks over others. Although the
transformation-pace-argument is indeed in many cases used as basis for adopting a layer approach, it
is then generally abandoned in the actual planning, i.e. it’s form without content. Arbitrariness seems
to be the appropriate label to put on the differing time horizons of the different layers in the different
documents. Time-oriented thinking also refers to the function of the built environment to
accommodate temporal-spatial user patterns. Diverse as the layer approach has become, still none of
the layer approaches in the plan documents studied is enriched with a ‘user layer’ – not even in those
cases where a cultural layer was added. A critical view on this lack of attention to the user side in the
Dutch layer approach has been expressed before by Priemus (2007) and Van Schaick and Klaasen
(2007). As it is not just the layer approach that lacks this attention (Klaasen 2004) a profound
discussion on the time concept and further research on time-oriented design and planning practices is
called for.

We are left with providing an answer to the question put in the title of this paper: is the layer approach
a passing phenomenon or does it constitute a fundamental approach to design and planning? Although
the original ideas behind the 1998 layer model were clearly articulated (though already disputable),
from the muddle of the many variations and the underlying debates on the layer approach since then,
we can’t but conclude that - although officially promoted as such - the Dutch layer approach is not a
ready made format for design and planning that just needs some adapting in a specific context. It
rather provides a conceptual framework for thinking about substance and process of planning. In our
view, however, it seems to be no more than again another, temporarily popular, framework for which
the world of designers and planners is well-known; exemplary in other words for an ongoing
‘conversation’. The prevalence of the layer approach in guides for spatial planning ensures the
application of the approach in at least one more generation of structure visions on the local and the
provincial level of governance. But there are indications that the popularity of the layer approach is
already declining. Many of the issues addressed through the layer approach are not new, but are newly
wrapped in. Other new wrappings are developing in which the Dutch layer approach is recombined
and marginalised in favour of other spatial planning frameworks, for instance network-based
approaches and ‘sustainability’ approaches in all their different meanings.

18
Acknowledgements

We thank Jan Goedman (Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment) and Henk Werksma
(H2Ruimte) for their input for this article provided in interviews held in 2009. The research project on
time-oriented urban planning and design was partially funded by the Delft Centre for Sustainable
Urban Areas, Delft University of Technology.

References
Albrechts & Mandelbaum (eds), 2005, The Network Society. A New Context for Planning, Networked Cities series. Oxford
(UK): Routledge.
Braudel, F. 1949, La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen a l'époque de Philippe II, 3 vols. Paris: Armand-Colin.
Buttimer, A., 1971, Society and Milieu in the French Geographic Tradition, AAG Monograph, No. 6. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Co.
Cammen, H. van der & De Klerk, L. 2003, Ruimtelijke Ordening. Van Grachtengordel tot Vinexwijk. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
CEVO (Centrale Examencommissie Vaststelling Opgaven vwo/havo/vmbo), 2007, Aardrijkskunde Havo - Syllabus centraal
examen 2009. Utrecht: CEVO.
De Hoog, M., Sijmons, D, & Verschuren, S., 1998a, Laagland. Amsterdam: HMD (Het Metropolitane Debat) – Herontwerp.
De Hoog, M., Sijmons, D, & Verschuren, S., 1998b, Herontwerp van het Laagland. In: D.H. Frieling (ed.) Het Metropolitane
Debat. Bussum: THOTH.
DCMR (Dienst Centraal Milieubeheer Rijnmond), 2004, LOGO, stappenplan en gebruikshandleiding voor een duurzame
ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Schiedam: DCMR.
Drewe, P., 2005, Time in Urban Planning and Design in the ICT Age. In: E.D. Hulsbergen, I.T. Klaasen & I. Kriens (eds)
Shifting Sense in Spatial Planning, Series Design/Science/Planning. Amsterdam: Techne Press, pp. 197-212.
Driehoek RZG, 2003, Strategiedocument driehoek RZG, Zuidplas. http://www.zuidplas.nl/assets/driehoekrzg/documentatie/
Strategiedocument.pdf (accessed 13 July 2009).
Dupuy, G., 1991, L’Urbanisme des Reseaux – Théories et Méthodes. Paris: Armand Colin Éditeurs.
Dupuy, G., 2008, Urban Networks – Network Urbanism. Compiled and edited by Van Schaick, J. & Klaasen, I.T. Series
Design/Science/Planning. Amsterdam: Techne Press.
Flipse, L. 2007, Environmental Policy Integration and Spatial Planning. An evaluation of the MILO and LOGO
methodologies for integral environmental and spatial planning. Master thesis Sustainable Development. Utrecht University.
http://www.leefmilieu.nl/pdf_s/masterscriptielindaflipse.pdf (accessed 13 July 2009)
Gemeente Amsterdam, 2003, Structuurplan Amsterdam – Kiezen voor Stedelijkheid. Deel 1 Het Plan. Amsterdam: DRO,
Gemeente Amsterdam
H+N+S, 1998, De Driehoek in Beeld. Gebiedsuitwerking Leiden-Haarlem-Amsterdam. Haarlem: Provincie Noord-Holland.
Hagens, J. 2006, De Lagenbenadering in de Ruimtelijke Planning. Over de Waarde van de Nederlandse Club Sandwich.
Topos, 3, pp. 24-27.
Hajer, M., Sijmons, D. & Feddes, F. (eds) 2006, Een Plan dat Werkt - Ontwerp en politiek in de regionale planvorming.
Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
Harness, H. D., 1837, Atlas to Accompany the Second Report of the Railway Commissioners, Ireland. Dublin: Irish Railway
Commission.
Heeling, J., Meyer, V.J. & Westrik, J., 2002, De Kern van de Stedebouw in het perspectief van de 21ste eeuw. Dl. 1. Het
ontwerp van de stadsplattegrond. Amsterdam: SUN publishers.
Jansen, H.S.J., Leerssen, J.Th. & Taverne, E.R.M., 2003, Stadsruimte: Diversiteit en Samenhang in de stedengeschiedenis
van Nederland. Verkenning Urbanisatie en Stedelijke Cultuur. Den Haag: NWO.
Klaasen, I.T., 2004, Knowledge-based Design: Developing Urban and Regional Design into a Science, Series
Design/Science/Planning, Amsterdam: Technepress, pp. 181-196.
McHarg, I.L., 1969, Design with Nature. New York: American Museum of Natural History
Lefebvre, H., 1974 (translation 1991) The Production of Space. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
PBL (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving), 2008, Streekplannen in beeld. Landelijk overzicht van provinciale streek- en
omgevingsplannen. Versie 2 Maart 2009, http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500073002.pdf (accessed 13 July 2009)

19
Priemus, H., 2004, From a Layers Approach towards a Network Approach: A Dutch Contribution to Spatial Planning
Methodology. Planning, Practice and Research, 19 (3): 267-283.
Priemus, H., 2007, The Networks Approach: Dutch Spatial Planning between Substratum and Infrastructure Networks.
European Planning Studies, 15 (5): 667-686.
Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2002, Streekplan Noord-Brabant 2002 'Brabant in Balans'. 's-Hertogenbosch: Provincie Noord-
Brabant.
Provincie Noord-Holland, 2002 Ontwerp Streekplan Noord-Holland Zuid. Haarlem: Provincie Noord-Holland.
RPD (Rijksplanologische Dienst, 2000, Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 1999, Ruimtelijke Perspectieven in Europa. Den Haag:
Ministerie van VROM.
RPD (Rijksplanologische Dienst), 2001, Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 2000, Het Belang van een Goede Ondergrond. Den Haag,
Ministerie van VROM.
Schuur, J., Janssen, L. Klaver, S., Pieterse, N. & Snellen, D., 2007, De Ruimtelijke Vraagstukken van de Toekomst voor de
Beleidsagenda van Nu. Den Haag/Bilthoven: Ruimtelijk Planbureau / Milieu en Natuurplanbureau.
SER (Sociaal Economische Raad), 2001, Advies over de Vijfde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening 2000/2020. Publicatienummmer 7.
Den Haag: Sociaal Economische Raad.
Sijmons, D., 1991, Het Casco-concept: een Benaderingswijze voor Landschapsplanning. Utrecht: IKC-NBLF.
Sijmons, D., 2002, Landkaartmos, en Andere Beschouwingen over Landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.
Stadsgewest Haaglanden (i.s.m.TNO INRO, Dauvelier Planadvies), 2003, MIRUP: Handreiking voor Milieu in Ruimtelijke
Plannen. Den Haag: Stadsgewest Haaglanden - Sector Milieu
Teunissen, A., 2002, Dynamiek Gerichte Planning, In: Stichting Planologische Diskussiedagen (ed) De Steden Begrensd.
Plandag 2002. Amsterdam: Stichting Planologische Diskussiedagen.
Tjallingii, S., 1996, Ecological Conditions: Strategies and Structures in Environmental Planning. Wageningen: Instituut voor
Bos- en Natuuronderzoek.
Van Schaick, J., 2005, Integrating the Social and Spatial Aspects of the Urban System. In: E.D.Hulsbergen, I.T. Klaasen &
I.Kriens (eds) Shifting Sense - Looking Back to the Future in Spatial Planning. Amsterdam: Techne Press, pp. 251-264.
Van Schaick, J. & Klaasen, I.T., 2007, Dynamics of Urban Networks as Basis for the Re-development of Layer Approaches.
In: Bruyns, G., Fuchs, A., Hoekstra, M.J., Meyer, V.J. & Van Nes, A. (eds), 4th International Seminar on Urbanism and
Urbanization. The European Tradition in Urbanism - and its Future. International PhD conference. Delft: TUDelft, Faculteit
Bouwkunde, pp.135-142.
Vidal de la Blache, P., 1922, Principes de Géographie Humaine. Paris: Armand Colin.
VNG, 2004, Handreiking Milieukwaliteit in de Leefomgeving [MILO]. Den Haag: VNG Uitgeverij.
Vonk-Noordegraaf, A., 2003, Plannen vanuit Ideeen; de Waarde van Vier Gebiedsbenaderingen in Ruimtelijke Planning.
Alterra rapport 776. Wageningen: Alterra.
VROM (Ministerie Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu), 2001a, Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening
2000 / 2020, Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen, Deel 1. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM.
VROM (Ministerie Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu), 2001b, Levende Stad (3 vols). Vol.1: 10 Essays over
Netwerkverstedelijking/Vol.2: Stedelijke Transformaties/Vol.3: Lagen en Dimensies. VROM 010627/h/12-01. Den Haag,
Ministerie van VROM.
VROM (Ministerie Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu), 2006, Nota Ruimte: Ruimte voor Ontwikkeling. Deel
4. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM
VROM (Ministerie Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu), 2008, Structuurvisie Randstad 2040 – Naar een
Duurzame en Concurrerende Topregio. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM.
Werksma, H., 2002, Kwaliteit(s)lagen. In: Stichting Planologische Diskussiedagen (ed) De Steden Begrensd. Plandag 2002.
Amsterdam: Stichting Planologische Diskussiedagen.
Werksma, H., Dauvellier, P., Maring, L. & Puylaert, H., 2007, Pilots Ruimtelijke Ordening Ondergrond - Processpoor. Den
Haag: Ministerie van VROM.
Zonneveld, W., 2005, The Europeanization of Dutch National Spatial Planning: An Uphill Battle. DISP, 2005(163), 4-15.

20