Nils Kok

Homes instead of meadows

(Dutch podcast here: Luister ook naar deze podcast door Nils Kok in programma "De Oplossers" op NPO radio1.)

"Incoming government to solve the housing crisis by speeding up construction," Dutch newspapers headlined earlier this week. Such political ambitions can be expected of a brand-new cabinet, but unfortunately, they often fail within months if not weeks after coming into office. In order to be able to build on a truly large scale, a fundamental change is needed in the public debate about land, in the view of researchers Nils Kok and Piet Eichholtz.

They say lessons can be learned from the case of Zeewolde, a town created on the reclaimed land of the old Zuiderzee, where Facebook parent company Meta has been given permission to build a massive data center on farmland. It teaches us that municipalities' views on land use must also change, according to the two scientists.

The current housing shortage in the Netherlands has several causes, but the most important is the scarcity of land designated for residential construction. If you look at all the land in this densely populated country, you will see that only 7% of its surface area is currently used for housing, 12% is used for trade and industry, infrastructure, and recreation and 15% consists of nature. No less than 66% of all land in this country (that’s a whopping two-thirds!) is used for agriculture.

 

Figure 1: Residential land as a percentage of farmland

This distribution of land must change; we must turn more of the Netherlands into residential land. This can be done in two ways. Either you use the land that is currently used for nature. In other words: the black-tailed godwit making way for housing. Or you use agricultural land for residential construction. Homes instead of meadows.

An additional point is that there isn't much nature in the Netherlands when compared to other European countries. Which doesn’t really help. But then again, we do have a lot of agricultural land in the Netherlands, relatively speaking. We must make use of this land. And it could serve as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we would solve the chronic shortage of housing land. On the other hand, buying out livestock farmers would also bring about a reduction of nitrate emissions.

It’s important to note here that the conversion of agricultural land must be done for the right purpose: earmarking 201 hectares of land for business parks and data centres near Zeewolde obviously doesn’t contribute to solving the housing shortage. That’s the trouble with Dutch municipalities: they are constantly issuing land for business parks and distribution centres, but are hesitant when it comes to building new homes on a large scale. All this despite the fact that the price of land designated for housing is much higher than farmland and therefore brings more money into the municipal or provincial coffers.

The idea of using agricultural land for new housing may sound frightening, but it is nothing new. The sprawling residential Leidsche Rijn district near Utrecht is a case in point. It just means that the scale and speed of converting the land will have to go up considerably.

This does not mean that all farmers should pack up and leave. In Belgium, where more than 9% of the land is designated for housing, 2% of agricultural land has been converted into residential construction land in recent years. That may seem small, but it's a huge difference. Again: at present, only 7% of the Netherlands is reserved for housing. Having 2% more would make a real difference.

Figure 2: Residential land prices: Netherlands vs Belgium

If we were to copy the Belgian example, agriculture would still make up 64% of our total land. Which means that almost all of our farmers could just keep doing what they're doing – but, more importantly, the rest of the Netherlands population would have affordable homes in the future.

Avoiding Crowded Places During COVID-19: Simple Choice or Complex Strategic Decision?

with Piet Eichholtz and Martijn Stroom, Frontiers in Psychology (2021)

Download

Introduction: Following a period of strict lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries introduced policies in which citizens were expected to avoid crowded places using common sense, as advised by the WHO. We argue that the ambiguity in the recommendation to “avoid crowded places” implicitly forces individuals to make a complex strategic decision. Methods: Using a Dutch representative sample of 1,048 participants [42% male, mean age=43.78years (SD=12.53), we examine the effect of context on the decision to visit a hypothetical recreational hotspot under the policy recommendation to “avoid crowded places.” We randomize four levels of context on the crowdedness “on the streets” (no context, low, medium, and high context). Subsequently, participants are asked to estimate the percentage of others going out in the same situation. Finally, we assess the impact of a selection of personal characteristics on the likelihood of visiting a crowded place. Results: Respondents are proportionally more likely to go in a low context and high context, compared to no context (diff=0.121, p<0.000, and diff=0.034, p<0.05, respectively) and middle context (diff=0.125, p<0.000, and diff=0.037, p<0.05, respectively). Low context information also decreases the expectation of others going out (−2.63%, z=4.68, p<0.000). High context information increases the expected percentage of others going out (significant only for medium to high context; 2.94%, z=7.34, p<0.001). Furthermore, we show that education, age, and health and risk attitude are all predictive of the likelihood to visit a crowded place, notwithstanding the context. Discussion: Although there is a strong inclination to avoid crowded places during the COVID-19 pandemic (81%), we find two context-driven exceptions: when people expect to avoid crowded spots (in the “low” context, i.e., strategical decision-making) and when people expect others to go (social influence). The freedom provided by the ambiguous public policy is implicitly asking more from the population than it initially seems. “Use your common sense” is often the accompanying advice, but our results show that more and better information concerning the context is essential to enable us to make an optimal decision for ourselves, and for society.