A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LAND

READJUSTMENT AT INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

YA ZHAO AND LENNON CHOY

DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION
THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
JULY 5 2019
CONTENT

1. A Brief Introduction of LR
2. LR Operations at International Context
3. Challenges and Problems
4. Conclusion
1. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF LR
 qA public-private-partnership
Assemble irregular land parcels

Re-plan & equip with infrastructures

Redistribute parcels
• Smaller in size but higher in value
• Certain area should be
contributed for public facilities
e.g. roads, parks and affordable
housing, as levy of “developer
obligations”
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Land Readjustment
qA land management instrument which has been promoted by the
United Nations and the World Bank and is incorporated as land use
policy in Germany, Spain, Israel, Turkey, Australia, Japan and South
Korea

qPeri-urbanization, inner-city revitalization, post-disaster reconstruction

and large infrastructure provision
qFacilitate land developments by:
üAssembling land lots for comprehensive planning efficient
land use
üFinancial mechanism built-in to recover cost mitigate budget
burden
üPromoting fair distribution of gains and costs among landowners
and government incentivize participation and avoid free-rider
problem
üEasing social tension: minimized interruption to land title and
community network alleviate negotiation costs
2. LR Operations at International Context
2.1 Innovational Means of Distribution
qPlots Outside The Project Area e.g. Germany
qCondominium Ownership In Buildings e.g. Israel, Japan
qMonetary Compensation e.g. German, Turkey
• In Germany, financial settlement may be provided when it is not possible to return plots within
binding land use plan or building regulations (Linke, 2018).
• In turkey, parcels which are designated for off-site public services such as hospitals and official
are obtained by the government through the expropriation process. (Turk, 2005).
qBuilding Rights e.g. Spain
qCompany Stock e.g. Lebanon
• In Lebanon, upon the completion shareholders could alternatively sell their stock holdings and
buy back land within the project area or elsewhere (Home, 2007; Hong, 2008).
2.2 Legal and Policy Frameworks
qWhy legal framework is essential?

• LR will interfere with existing property rights and structures

• Formal execution procedures and principles should be established

• The implementation agency should be enabled to enforce A program

Conflicts and delays may arise once there is any gap in legislation! (Yilmaz, 2015)
Table 1 Summary of LR Legislations
Japan Land Readjustment Law and the related regulations and guidelines.
Germany Federal Building Code
Australia Sections 6, 7, and 13 of the Town Planning Development Act
South Korea Urban Development Act; 1966 Land Readjustment Law (was abolished in 1980s)
Turkey Reconstruction Law No. 3194 and Article 18 of the Turkish Zoning Law
Spain Valencia Regional Planning Law
Indonesia The 1991 Regulation of the Head of the National Land Agency No 4
Israel Planning and Building Law chapter 3, section 7
Taiwan Articles 56,76 and 161 of 1957 bylaws of Equalization and Urban Land Rights
Law and 1979 Act of Promotion of Private-Owners Initiated Land Readjustment
Nepal Town Development Act (TDA) BS 2045
2.3 Implementation Process
qFour stages
• Project initiation; preparation of project plans; infrastructure construction;
subdivision and redistribution
• Finish when serviced land parcels are reregistered on property registry
ØIn Germany, Turkey and Indonesia, infrastructure construction is not
incorporated in LR process but is the duty of local or central government
after LR. Therefore, costs for infrastructure should be covered by
government budget
2.3 Implementation Process
qOwnership structure
• Land parcels designated for public infrastructure and cost recovery is
legally transferred to the government
• Land holding rights of original landowners are preserved and
reregistered at the end of a LR procedure in most countries
ØIn Australia and Turkey, all the plots should be exchanged to the
government temporarily and landowners receive back land titles of
serviced plots later on
2.4 Project Initiation and Landowners’ Participation

qA project is formally initiated and legally enforced when

• the submitted proposal is sanctioned by relative planning authority or
local governor and;
• an agency is formed to execute LR
Table 2 Summary of LR Initiation Requirements
Initiator Landowners’ Participation Countries or Regions
Public Compulsory without consensus building process Germany, Australia,
authorities India, Turkey, Spain
and Israel
Public Agreement of the 50% (in number or area) Taiwan
authorities majority of 75% landowners Indonesia
landowners is
85% (in number and Nepal
obligatory
area)
Public * Public projects: landowners’ consent is not Japan and South
authorities or required; Korea
landowner * Association projects: consent from at least
association 2/3 (both in number and area) landowners
2.5 Administration Body
Japan Public project: directly managed by local LR departments
Association projects: managed by LR departments or by a non-profit
organization set up by LR departments; the decision making body is the
general meetings of all landowners
India Once the draft scheme is approved, the state government will appoint a
town planning officer supervise and execute the scheme
Indonesia National land agency is in charge of implementation.
LR Controlling Team (provincial): formulating guidance, undertaking
evaluations;
LR Coordination Team (district): determine directions of spatial planning,
select location and supervise the use of reserved cost-recovery land
LR Task Force (local), operational executor
2.5 Administration Body
Spain An urbanizing agent will be selected as implementer through a public
tender and should be statutorily empower to enforce a LR plan and
recoup costs from landowners
Turkey A public corporation or private surveying company is authorized to
implement
Germany The municipal office is responsible for preparing plans and negotiating
with landowners; final decisions shall be made by the independent land
readjustment boards.
Isreal Part of the regular statutory land use planning process. Local planning
commissions are authorized to execute LR without additional planning
procedures
2.6 Cost Recovery and Benefit Sharing
qGenerally, landowners should give up a certain portion of land holdings:
• for public facilities construction and;
• for public sale to partly or wholly recover the project costs
q In some cases, landowners are provided to pay the costs in cash in
exchange for less land dedication;
qIn some cases, there is no benefits sharing mechanism and all the
betterment is entirely captured by one party.
Table 3 Summary of cost and benefit sharing mechanism
Japan • Around 30%, 20% for infrastructure land, 12%-15% for cost
recovery;
• Public subsidies and grants are available for public facilities.
South • up to 55%,30% for public facilities and 20% for cost
Korea recovery;
• No mechanism to capture development gains and the gains
were solely returned to private landowners
Spain • 60-80% for projects with floor ratio>1 and 30-60% with floor
area ratio < 1;
• Extra 5%-15% of the building rights as betterment charge ;
• Landowners must pay all the construction cost in cash or in kind
Table 3 Summary of cost and benefit sharing mechanism continued

Australia • All project costs should be charged to landowners;

• The government does not capture the land value increments

Taiwan • Up to 40% for public purpose and cost recovery;

• New plots facing streets or on the corners contribute more;
• Outside Landowners bear betterment charges if benefit from the
project
India landowners are obliged to contribute up to 40%, usually 8-10% for
sale and 20-30% for roads and infrastructure
Table 3 Summary of cost and benefit sharing mechanism continued

Turkey • Up to 40% for public use. Excess is acquired by monetary

compensation;
• No cost recovery lands and the cost is born by municipalities
Nepal • 5% for public open spaces and amenities, 5% for cost recovery,
4% to 36% for roads;
• Over-run costs will be subsidized by government budget
Table 3 Summary of cost and benefit sharing mechanism continued
Germany Ø By size principle:
• 10% (developed previously) and 30% (developed for the first
time)
• Compensation must be made for the exceeding part. Landowners
should pay the difference in cash if land deducted is under the
maximum permit
Ø By value principle
• landowners gain the value increase resulted from land use change;
• the value increment due to LR will be claim back by municipality
through monetary payment
Ø infrastructure costs has to be paid by the municipalities and any
surplus of the extraction can be used to recover project costs
3. CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS
3.1 Opposition from landowners
qJapan
• Severe opposition in 1970s &1980s: some were delayed or even were
abandoned
ØLocal explanation sessions and meetings are held;
ØWork hardly to obtain community leaders’ or largest landowners’ consent;
ØOrganizers will start only when 80% consent is ensured.
qTaiwan
• Increasing opposition from landowners because 50% consent rule is too easy to
satisfy and infringes upon the will of remaining landowners
qNepal
• Almost all the LR projects encountered landowners’ opposition before
commencement due to poor negotiation skill of project managers
3.2 Rampant speculation and unaffordable housing
qSouth Korea
• Some landowners were suspicious and sold their sites to middlemen who
hoarded land for speculation
• LR agencies tried to keep land prices high in order to ensure the recovery of
expenses
q Taiwan
• LR areas always attract developers’ investment. Land and housing prices are high
in readjustment areas and surrounding areas accompanied with a high vacancy
q Turkey
• Land values rise by 400% to 600% after LR and some landowners readjusted
leave parcels vacant to await further value increase.
3.3 Operation Problems
qPrivatization of development profits
• South Korea
Ø The excessive private capture of land value increments led to social
tensions. landowners accumulated enormous wealth and stratification of
society was aggravated
qUnfair redistribution
• Turkey
Ø The area-based method is accused mostly for equity concerns because
each building plots have different characteristics which directly affect the
value
3.3 Operation Problems
qInsufficient technical support
• Indonesia
Øland valuation is not rigorous and the after value is substantially undervalued
• Turkey
ØNo research on social relations and leads to problems when landowners become
shareholders in parcels with somebody they do not like
Øshortage of surveying engineers in many municipalities, makes the operation of
LR projects difficult
ØUnstandardized procedures and outdated cadastral information make it error-
prone and time-consuming
ØRepetitions of mistakes are common in many projects due to lack of a platform
to share experiences
3.4 Delay in development after LR
qDelayed Infrastructure provision
• In Turkey and Indonesia, infrastructure is excluded from LR process. Local
governments have to seek financing following LR projects which cause
delays in the construction of roads and other basic facilities. Thus,
development on replotted plots are impeded.
• In Taiwan and Turkey, co-ownership structures make construction on or sale
of new parcels impossible without all shareholders’ participation.
• In India, construction after LR is delayed because of complex and lengthy
bureaucratic procedures to obtain building permission.
3.4 Delay in development after LR
qNo legal request to build on or sell the replotted plots
• In South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Nepal, landowners keep readjusted
parcels vacant for a long time and await higher prices
3.5 Urban sprawl
• In Tokyo, Japan and Taiwan, LR schemes are often undertaken in city outskirts
far away built up areas:
ØHigher value increase and less involved landowners made consensus building
process easier
3.6 Damages on cultural heritage and natural landscapes
• Lebanon and Spain, where LR is implemented by private companies, suffer from
strong complaints about insufficient protection of cultural heritage and natural
landscapes.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Ø Land readjustment is effective in promoting comprehensive land use
planning
Ø It benefit both land owners within and outside LR project area by
regularize land shapes and providing essential infrastructures
Ø However, the application of LR should be cautious and the success hinges
on:
ü Solid legislative base
ü Well-designed cost recovery and benefit sharing structure
ü Enough and advanced technical support e.g. valuation; surveying;
economic, social and environment feasibility research
ü Post LR monitoring and administration
THANK YOU
References
Abraham J. M. and Dave H., Land Readjustment in India. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan
International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Agrawal P., 1999. Urban land consolidation: a review of policy and procedures in Indonesia and other Asian countries.
GeoJournal 49 (3), 311–322, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1007150828772 .
Alterman, R., 2007. Much more than land assembly land readjustment for the supply of urban public services. In: Hong,
Y.H., Needham, B. (Eds.), Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, pp. 37–54.
Archer R. W., Land Pooling by Local Government for Planned Urban Development in Perth. In: Doebele W. ed., “Land
Readjustment: A Different Approach to Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA, September 1982.
Archer R., 1988. Land Pooling for Resubdivision and New Subdivision in Western Australia. The American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 207-221.

Byahut S. and Mittal J., 2017. Using Land Readjustment in Rebuilding the Earthquake-Damaged City of Bhuj, India. J.
Urban Plann. Dev., 2017, 143(1): -1—1.
Çete M., 2010. Turkish Land Readjustment: Good Practice in Urban Development. J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2010, 136(4):
373-380.
Chhetri R., 2014. Land Policy Instruments in Nepal. J. Inst. Eng., 10 (1) (2014), pp. 69-79.
Chiaravalli L., 2012. Exploring alternatives to land acquisition. Working Paper Series, August 2012, Centre for Public
Policy Research, India.
References
Chou T. C. and Shen S.K., Urban Land Readjustment in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. In: Doebele W. ed., “Land Readjustment: A
Different Approach to Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA, September 1982.
Connellan O., 2002. Land Assembly for Development- The Role of Land Pooling, Land Re-Adjustment and Land
Consolidation FIG XXII International Congress Washington, D.C. USA, April 19-26 2002
Davy, B., 2007. Mandatory happiness? Land readjustment and property in Germany. In: Hong, Y.-H., Needham, B.
(Eds.), Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
Cambridge, USA (chapter 5).
Doebele W. ed., “Land Readjustment: A Different Approach to Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA,
September 1982.
Gaudet, A., 2007. Planning Procedure for L’association Fonciere Urbaine Autorisee (Registered Land Urban
Association). Strategic Integration of Surveying Services Fig Working Week 2007.
Gielen D. M. ,2014. Urban governance, property rights, land readjustment and public value capturing. European
Urban and Regional Studies 2014, Vol 21(1) 60–78.

Gielen D. M. et al., 2007. Lessons from Valencia: Separating infrastructure provision from land ownership. The Town
Planning Review; 2007; 78, 1.
Gielen D. M., 2016. Proposal of Land Readjustment for the Netherlands: An analysis of its effectiveness from an
international perspective. Cities 53 (2016) 78–86.
Gracia N. et al., 2013. Leveraging Land to Enable Urban Transformation- Lessons from Global Experience. The World
Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 6312.
References
Grange A.L. and Jung H. N. (2004) The commodification of land and housing: the case of South Korea, Housing
Studies, 19:4, 557-580, DOI: 10.1080/0267303042000221963
Hayashi K., 1982. Land Readjustment in Nagoya. In: Doebele W. ed., “Land Readjustment: A Different Approach to
Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA, September 1982.
Home R. (2007), Land readjustment as a method of development land assembly: A comparative overview. TPR, 78
(4):459-483.
Hong, Y.-H. and Needham, B., 2007. Analyzing Land Readjustment Economics, Law, and Collective Action.
Hong, Y.-H., 2008. Sharing vs. Eminent Domain. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
https://wardscornernow.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/land-readjusment-vs-eminent-domain.pdf
Honjo, M., and Inoue, T., 1984. Summary and acknowledgements. In M. Honjo, & T. Inoue, Urban development policies
and land management: Japan and Asia (pp. 1)14). Nagoya: City of Nagoy.
Honjo, M., and Inoue, T., 1984. Summary and acknowledgements. In M. Honjo, & T. Inoue, Urban development policies
and land management: Japan and Asia (pp. 1)14). Nagoya: City of Nagoya.

Jacob M. and Harpal D., 2018. Land Readjustment in India. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Joshi K. and Shrestha S., 2018. Land Readjustment in Nepal. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
References
Joshi K. K. and Shrestha S. B., Land Readjustment in Nepal, In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Jung H., Evaluations of land policies in Korea (2014). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51179801.pdf
Karki, T. K. 2004. Implementation experiences of land pooling pro- jects in Katmandu Valley. Habitat International 28 (1):
67–88.
Kang M., 2015. Development of Gangnam. Seoul Solution: https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/node/3445
Khamaisi R., The Issue of Land Reparcelization as Part of Land Readjustment in Israel. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono,
eds. 2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan
International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Kim I., Hwang M. and Doebele W., 1982. Land Readjustment in South Korea. In: Doebele W. ed., “Land Readjustment: A
Different Approach to Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA, September 1982.
Kim S., 2013. Changes in Urban Planning Policies and Urban Morphologies in Seoul, 1960s to 2000s. Architecture Research,
Vol. 15, No. 3(2013). pp. 133-141.
Kim S., 2017. The Land Readjustment Program. Seoul Solution. https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/content/land-readjustment-
program-0
Klaas K.
et al., 2017. Value Capture Ideals and Practice – The Transition of Value Capture Policies in the Case of Seoul,
Republic of Korea. Forthcoming.
Kucukmehmetoglu M., Geymen A., 2016. Optimization models for urban land readjustment practices in Turkey. Habitat
International 53 (2016) 517-533.
References
Larsson, G., 1997. Land readjustment: a tool for urban development. Habitat Int. 21 (2), 141–152.
Lin T. C. and Ding H. Y., 2018. Urban Land Readjustment in Taiwan. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds.
2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan
International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Lin T., 2005. Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment. Land Use Policy 22 (2005) 95–102.
Linke H. J., The Land Readjustment System in Germany. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Matsui M. and Deguchi C., 2014. The Characteristics of Land Readjustment Systems in Japan, Thailand, and Mongolia and
an Evaluation of the Applicability to Developing Countries. Proceedings of International Symposium on City Planning
2014, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Matsui M. et al., 2017. The Tokyo Development Learning Center (TDLC), The World Bank. Case Study: Land Readjustment
in Japan.
Mittal J., 2013. Extending Land Readjustment Schemes to Regional Scale:
A Case Study of Regional
Ring Road via
Mosaicking Neighborhood Level Plans. REAL ESTATE FINANCE, FALL 2013: 62-73.
Mittal J., 2014. Self-financing land and urban development via land readjustment and value capture. Habitat International
44 (2014) 314-323.
Miyazawa M., 1982. Land Readjustment in Japan. In: Doebele W. ed., “Land Readjustment: A Different Approach to
Financing Urbanization”, Lexington Books, USA, September 1982.
References
Monk S.et al., 2013. International Review of Land Supply and Planning Systems. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, March
2013. WWW.JRF.ORG.UK
Müller-Jökel, R., 2001. German land readjustment – ecological, economic and social land management. In: International
Conference – New Technology for a New Century, FIG Working Week 2001, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Müller-Jökel, R., Land Evaluation in Urban Development Process in Germany, FIG XXII International Congress Washington,
D.C. USA, 2002. https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig_2002/Ts8-
2/TS8_2_mullerjokel.pdf
Müller-Jökel, R.,Land Readjustment – A Win-Win-Strategy for Sustainable Urban Development, FIG Working Week
2004,Athens, Greece.
https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/athens/papers/ts14/TS14_3_MullerJokel.pdf
Oli P., 2010.
Land Pooling / Readjustment Programmes in Nepal (4553). FIG Congress 2010
Facing the Challenges –
Building the Capacity Sydney, Australia, 11-16 April 2010.
RR. Home, 2018. Why Land Readjustment
in the British Former Colonies, but not in the United Kingdom? In: Souza, F. F., T.
Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st
edition. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Sanyal, B., and Deuskar, C., 2012. “A better way to grow? Town planning schemes as a hybrid land readjustment process
in Ahmedabad, India.” Value capture and land policies, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Schrock M., 2012. The Potential Use of Land Readjustment as an Urban Redevelopment Strategy in the United States:
Assessing Net Economic Value. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, September 2012.
References
Sevkiye S., 2008. An Examination for Efficient Applicability of the Land Readjustment Method at the International
Context. Journal of Planning Literature (2008) 229-242.
Shrestha R. et al., 2017. Exploring the Potential of the Land Readjustment Approach in Allocating Land for Affordable
Housing from the Market Legitimacy Perspective. “2017 WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY” The
World Bank-Washington DC, March 20-24, 2017.
Shultz M. and Schnidman F., 1990. The Potential Application of Land Readjustment in the United States, 22 Urb. Law. 197
(1990). 

Sorensen, A. 1999. Land readjustment, urban planning and urban sprawl in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Urban Studies
36(13):2333–2360.
Sorensen, A., 2000a. Conflict, consensus or consent: implications of Japanese land readjustment practice for developing
countries. Habitat International 24 (2000) 51-73.
Sorensen, A., 2000b. Land readjustment and metropolitan growth: an examination of suburban land development and
urban sprawl in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area. Prog. Plan. 53 (4), 217–330, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-
9006(00)00002-7.
Sorensen, A., 2007. Consensus, persuasion, and opposition: land readjustment organizing in Japan. In: Hong, Y.-H.,
Needham, B. (Eds.), Analyzing Land Readjustment: Economics, Law, and Collective Action. Lincoln Institute for Land
Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 89–114.
Souza F. T. Ochi, and Hosono A., eds. 2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach.
1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
References
Supriatna, A., 2011. The Feasibility Study of Land Readjustment for Kampung Upgrading in Jakarta. Earth. University of
Twente.
Supriatna A., The Application of Land Consolidation in Indonesia. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds. 2018.
Land
Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Supriatna, A., 2018. The Application of Land Consolidation in Indonesia. In: Souza, F. F., T. Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds.
2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st edition. Tokyo: Japan
International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Turk S.S., 2005. Land readjustment: an examination of its application in Turkey. Cities, Vol. 22, No. 1(2005), p. 29–42.
Turk S.S., 2007. An analysis on the efficient applicability of the land readjustment (LR) method in Turkey. Habitat
International 31 (2007) 53–64.
Yilmaz A. and Demir H., 2015, Evaluation of Turkish Land Readjustment. FIG Working Week 2015.
Yilmaz A. et al, 2015, An evaluation framework for land readjustment practices. Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 153–168.
Yomralioglu T., Uzun B.and. Nisanci R, 2018. The Shortcomings of Land Readjustment Application in Turkey. In: Souza, F., T.
Ochi, and A. Hosono, eds 2018.
Land Readjustment: Solving Urban Problems Through Innovative Approach. 1st
edition. Tokyo: Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute.
Zamorano M. & Gielen D., 2017. Non-Negotiable Developer Obligations in the Spanish Land Readjustment: An Effective
Passive Governance Approach that ‘de facto’ Taxes Development Value? Planning Practice & Research, 32:3, 274-
296, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2017.1374669