Articles Open Access (CC BY 4.0) Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025) pp. 39-47

The Use of Spatial Planning Tools and Data Visualization to Resolve Land-Use Conflicts in Dutch Urban Environments

Authors

  • Giorgio Neri 1,✉
  1. Villa I Tatti, Harvard University

marks the corresponding author.

  • Received: 2026-05-03
  • Published 2026-05-03
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51817/jas.v6i2.445
Download PDF (75 KB)

Abstract

This study evaluates the effectiveness of GIS-based data visualisation platforms and spatial simulation models in facilitating urban spatial planning processes and resolving land-use conflicts in the densely configured Dutch urban environment. The Netherlands presents a uniquely demanding laboratory for the application of spatial planning tools: the conjunction of extreme population density, acute land scarcity produced by hydrological engineering imperatives, the ambitions of the National Environment and Planning Act, and multi-actor governance architecture creates a conflict-intensity context for which advanced GIS visualisation capacities are particularly well-suited. Employing Action Research and Stakeholder Analysis methodology, the study develops and deploys an interactive spatial data visualisation platform, the Ruimtelijke Conflict Visualisatie Platform (RCVP), across three land-use conflict case studies in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region: an infrastructure corridor versus urban green space conflict; a nitrogen deposition regulatory constraint versus housing development conflict; and a cultural heritage preservation versus mixed-use densification conflict. Quantitative measurement of conflict resolution speed, multi-stakeholder satisfaction, and planning decision quality is conducted through a comparative pre-post assessment design, with a control group of analogous conflict cases resolved without the RCVP platform. Results demonstrate that GIS-based interactive visualisation substantially reduces conflict-resolution timelines by a mean of 34%, significantly improves stakeholder satisfaction scores, particularly among non-professional community participants, and demonstrably enhances the technical quality of spatial trade-off decisions, as assessed by independent planning expert panels. Critically, the study identifies a visualisation-persuasion paradox: platforms producing the highest stakeholder satisfaction also carry the highest risk of manipulative framing of spatial data, a finding with direct implications for the governance of GIS-based participatory planning in Dutch omgevingsvisie development processes.

References

  1. Agger, A., & Löfgren, K. (2008). Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes. Planning Theory, 7(2), 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208090432
  2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  3. Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2004). Mandating citizen participation in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978018
  4. CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). (2023). Bevolkingsdichtheid per gemeente 2023. Statistics Netherlands.
  5. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022908820784
  6. Deltacommissie. (2021). Syntheserapport: Adaptatiepaden voor waterveiligheid en zoetwater. Deltacommissie.
  7. Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01023.x
  8. Hajer, M., & Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatial planning in the network society: Rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8(3), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666411
  9. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan.
  10. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
  11. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., & Turton, I. (2000). Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24(2), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(99)00049-6
  12. Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703-726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661508
  13. Rijksoverheid. (2024). Omgevingswet: Toelichting en implementatierichtlijnen. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties.
  14. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
  15. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392581
  16. Wet stikstofreductie en natuurverbetering [Nitrogen Reduction and Nature Improvement Act]. (2021). Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2021/140.

Downloads

pp. 39-47

Article statistics

Views
0
Downloads
0

Issue information

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025)

Section

Articles

CC BY 4.0

Copyright (c) 2026 Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Asian Studies: Culture, Language, Art and Communications

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.