Vol. 2 No. 10 (2025)

Review Article

Policy–space interactions in urban and regional development: A systematic review with a focus on policy spatial footprints

Published 2025-11-30 — Updated on 2025-12-08

  • Mado Nakamura

Mado Nakamura
University College London image/svg+xml

Abstract

Amid slowing urbanisation, tightening climate constraints and growing fiscal pressures, the spatial consequences of public policy have become a central concern in urban and regional research. Yet most empirical studies still represent policy exposure with coarse buffers, administrative units or stylised scenarios, which makes it difficult to disentangle the effects of overlapping instruments and governance arrangements. This review synthesises peer-reviewed work published mainly between 2020 and 2025 that explicitly links public policies—particularly land-use regulation, transport and mobility interventions, environmental and climate policies, and selected social and health measures—to spatially explicit outcomes such as land prices, urban form, emissions and socio-spatial inequality. Drawing on Web of Science and Scopus searches complemented by targeted snowballing, we retain studies that (i) conceptualise policy as a spatially delimited intervention and (ii) employ explicit spatial indicators of exposure and outcome. Within this corpus, the Policy Spatial Footprint (PSF) framework is highlighted as one representative approach that converts legal and planning clauses into auditable geometries with time stamps and intensity levels and, in the Yangtze River Delta case, combines network-time exposure with staggered difference-in-differences models to identify land-value capitalisation effects. Across domains, we find persistent sectoral fragmentation, short time horizons and a marked geographical bias towards large cities in Europe, North America and China, with small cities, peri-urban areas and the Global South under-represented. Methodologically, recent studies advance spatial econometrics, quasi-experimental designs, remote sensing and digital-twin infrastructures, but open, standardised spatial policy datasets remain rare. The review proposes a policy–space–outcome framework anchored by PSF, outlines priorities for multi-scale causal designs, open PSF repositories and comparative governance research, and argues that integrating resilience, justice and digitalisation is essential for evaluating how policy packages shape spatial development trajectories.

PDF

References

  1. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
  2. Abdelrahman, M. M., Haddad, A., Zhou, Y., Lyu, H., & Ghaffarianhoseini, A. (2025). What is a digital twin anyway? Deriving the definition for the built environment from over 15,000 scientific publications. Building and Environment, 241, Article 112748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112748
  3. Ahmad, N., Khan, S., & Ali, R. (2025). Unplanned land use in a planned city: A systematic analysis of Karachi’s land use pattern. Land, 14(11), Article 2248. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112248
  4. Angel, S., Blei, A. M., Parent, J., Lamson-Hall, P., Sánchez, N. G., & Civco, D. L. (2021). Densify and expand: A global analysis of recent urban expansion. Sustainability, 13(7), Article 3835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073835
  5. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829828
  6. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1
  7. Azadi, R., Amado, M. P., & Tan, W. (2025). What have urban digital twins contributed to urban planning and decision making? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Smart Cities, 8(1), Article 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities8010032
  8. Bali, A. S., Howlett, M., Lewis, J. M., & Ramesh, M. (2021). Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy and Society, 40(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1965379
  9. Banikoi, H., Assembe-Mvondo, S., & Judor, B. (2024). Embedding spatial planning in contemporary multi-level governance: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Land Use Policy, 133, Article 107324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107324
  10. Batty, M. (2018). Digital twins. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(5), 817–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808318796416
  11. Batty, M. (2024). Digital twins in city planning. Nature Computational Science, 4(3), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-024-00606-7
  12. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (Eds.). (2017). Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748
  13. Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., & Paterson, J. (2015). Are we adapting to climate change? Global environmental change and systematic reviews. Regional Environmental Change, 15(5), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7
  14. Bertolini, L. (1999). Spatial development patterns and public transport: The application of an analytical model in Western European cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 7(4), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(99)00013-6
  15. Biesbroek, R., & Candel, J. J. L. (2020). Mechanisms for policy (dis)integration: Explaining food and climate change adaptation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 53(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09354-2
  16. Botticini, F., & Auzins, A. (2022). Land use efficiency and value capture. Encyclopedia, 2(4), 1943–1958. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2040134
  17. Buzási, A., & Csizovszky, A. (2023). Urban sustainability and resilience: What the literature tells us about “lock-ins”? Ambio, 52(1), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01817-w
  18. Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
  19. Campos, V. B. G., Consoli, S., de Almeida, R. L., & Pinho, P. (2025). Digital twins for urban governance: General desires and governance needs. Urban Planning, 10(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v10i3.7437
  20. Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2020). The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
  21. Cejudo, G. M., & Trein, P. (2023). Pathways to policy integration: A subsystem approach. Policy Sciences, 56(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1
  22. Cervero, R., & Kang, C. D. (2011). Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul, Korea. Transport Policy, 18(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.06.005
  23. Cervero, R., & Murakami, J. (2009). Rail and property development in Hong Kong: Experiences and extensions. Urban Studies, 46(10), 2019–2043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009339431
  24. Chay, K. Y., & Greenstone, M. (2005). Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. Journal of Political Economy, 113(2), 376–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/427462
  25. Cheshmehzangi, A., & Dawodu, A. (2021). Revisiting floor area ratio for sustainable urban form and energy planning. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, Article 687895. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.687895
  26. Corgo, J., & Freitas, A. (2024). Nature-based solutions in spatial planning and policies for climate change adaptation: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 110, Article 105656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105656
  27. Creutzig, F., Baiocchi, G., Bierkandt, R., Pichler, P.-P., & Seto, K. C. (2015). Global typology of urban energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6283–6288. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417623112
  28. Danylo, O., See, L., Schepaschenko, D., McCallum, I., Domian, D., & Fritz, S. (2019). Towards an integrated perspective on the spatial distribution of greenhouse gas emissions in cities by combining bottom-up and top-down approaches. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24, 1271–1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-9846-z
  29. Deng, T., Zhang, K., & Chan, D. (2021). A systematic review of a digital twin city: A new pattern of urban governance toward smart cities. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 6(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2021.03.003
  30. Deng, Z., Hu, J., Zhang, Q., Liu, Y., & Yu, Z. (2023). Incorporating ecosystem services into functional zoning for ecological conservation: A case study of the Shennongjia region. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 46182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46182-0
  31. Deren, L., Wenbing, Y., & Shaohua, W. (2021). Smart city based on digital twins. Computational Urban Science, 1(4), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43762-021-00005-y
  32. D’Hauwers, R., Tosi, F., Bogart, S., et al. (2021). From an inside-in towards an outside-out urban digital twin: Business models and implementation challenges. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, VIII-4/W1, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-VIII-4-W1-2021-25-2021
  33. de Vries, S. (2021). The power of procedural policy tools at the local level: Australian local governments contributing to policy change for major projects. Policy and Society, 40(3), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1955471
  34. Dingkuhn, E. L., Schlüter, M., Huber, R., et al. (2025). Land-use governance: The interplay of social, market, and policy drivers—A global systematic review. Earth System Governance, Article 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100275
  35. Dorado-Rubín, M., et al. (2025). Policy integration in urban policies as multi-level policy mixes. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09562-5
  36. Dorado-Rubín, M. J., Guerrero-Mayo, M. J., & Navarro-Yáñez, C. J. (2025). Policy integration in urban policies as multi-level policy mixes. Policy Sciences, 58(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09562-5
  37. Dworczyk, C., Syrbe, R.-U., & Walz, U. (2021). Conceptualising the demand for ecosystem services. One Ecosystem, 6, Article e65966. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.6.e65966
  38. Echevarría, J. C., Luby, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2025). Challenges to equitable and effective land value capture for public transport financing. Urban Affairs Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874251323896
  39. Eckhardt, F., Biesbroek, R., & Wamsler, C. (2020). Climate policy integration in the land-use sector: Achievements and future prospects. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.020
  40. Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial econometrics: From cross-sectional data to spatial panels. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40340-8
  41. Ellul, C., Stoter, J., Harrie, L., et al. (2024). Towards nationally connected digital twins: A geospatial perspective. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, X-4/W5-2024, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X4-W5-2024-147-2024
  42. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
  43. Fang, Z., & Yu, D. (2010). A space–time accessibility measure for transport planning. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(6), 947–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.06.008
  44. Ferré-Bigorra, J., & Neumann, A. (2022). A decision-driven data selection model for urban digital twin development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 87, Article 104167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104167
  45. Fistola, R. (2023). Ecosystem services for the city as a complex system: A methodological proposal. Sustainability, 15(23), Article 9318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129318
  46. Gennaio, M.-P., Hersperger, A. M., & Bürgi, M. (2009). Containing urban sprawl—Evaluating effectiveness of urban growth boundaries set by the Swiss Land Use Plan. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.010
  47. Gibbons, S., & Overman, H. G. (2012). Mostly pointless spatial econometrics? Journal of Regional Science, 52(2), 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2012.00760.x
  48. Glaeser, E. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2010). The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.11.006
  49. Goldstein, J. H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T. K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G., et al. (2012). Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7565–7570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117313109
  50. Gong, W., Li, V. J., & Ng, M. K. (2021). Deciphering property development around high-speed railway stations through land value capture: Case studies in Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Sustainability, 13(22), Article 12605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212605
  51. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  52. Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T. M., & Hayek, U. W. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—A spatial decision support system for case studies in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.005
  53. Guo, R., Li, Z., & Yang, Y. (2023). Spatial effects of cultivated land conservation policies on rural land use in China. Land, 12(2), Article 491. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020491
  54. Gurney, K. R., Mendoza, D. L., Zhou, Y., Fischer, M. L., de la Rue du Can, S., Geethakumar, S., & Miller, C. (2009). High resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emission fluxes for the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(14), 5535–5541. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900806c
  55. Hailu, T. (2024). Land use transformation driven by urban informal settlements and its impact on ecosystem services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research, 13, Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-024-00359-2
  56. Hall, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regions in Europe. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773911
  57. Hämäläinen, J., Suomisto, J., & Penttinen, P. (2021). Urban development with dynamic digital twins in Helsinki City. IET Smart Cities, 3(3), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12015
  58. Hickmann, T., Stehle, F., Bromley-Trujillo, R., & Dijkstra, A. (2021). Locating cities and their governments in multi-level governance arrangements of climate change. Politics and Governance, 9(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i1.3616
  59. Hou, H., Yang, Y., Bi, Y., & Li, F. (2024). Socioeconomic inequalities in the distribution of urban green space in rapidly urbanizing China. Land, 13(5), Article 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13050626
  60. Hou, Y., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. (2025). Spatial governance of farmland protection and farmland fragmentation in peri-urban China. Land, 14(8), Article 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081524
  61. Howlett, M. (2018). The criteria for effective policy design: Character and context in policy instrument choice. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 11(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2017.1412284
  62. Howlett, M. (2023). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003343431
  63. Howlett, M., Vince, J., & del Rio, P. (2017). Policy integration and multi-level governance: Dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs. Politics and Governance, 5(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i2.928
  64. Kauark-Fontes, A. F., Díaz, S., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., et al. (2023). Integration of nature-based solutions in local policy and planning toward transformative change. Ecology and Society, 28(2), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14182-280225
  65. Kirby, M. G., Sagaris, L., & Bhattacharjee, S. (2023). A review of the wider functions and effects of urban growth boundaries. Landscape and Urban Planning, 229, Article 104635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104635
  66. Kirsop-Taylor, N., McGuirk, P. M., Kent, J., & Bueno, P. (2022). Urban governance and policy mixes for nature-based solutions and integrated water policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.024
  67. Krawchenko, T., & Tomaney, J. (2023). The governance of land use: A conceptual framework. Land, 12(3), Article 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030608
  68. Krawchenko, T. A., & Tomaney, J. (2023). The governance of land use: A conceptual framework. Land, 12(3), Article 608. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12030608
  69. Kwan, M.-P. (1998). Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
  70. Kwan, M.-P. (2012). The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 958–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.687349
  71. Labib, S. M., Lindley, S., & Huck, J. (2021). Estimating multiple greenspace exposure types and their associations with neighbourhood premature mortality: A socioecological study. Science of the Total Environment, 789, Article 147919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147919
  72. Lai, S., & Zoppi, C. (2024). Sustainable spatial planning based on ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. Sustainability, 16(6), Article 2591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062591
  73. La Riccia, L., Assumma, V., Bottero, M. C., Dell’Anna, F., & Voghera, A. (2023). A contingent valuation-based method to valuate ecosystem services for a proactive planning and management of cork oak forests in Sardinia (Italy). Sustainability, 15(13), Article 7986. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107986
  74. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00342.x
  75. Leibowicz, B. D. (2020). Urban land-use and transportation planning under climate change: Long-term policy design for sustainable cities. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(1), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.12.034
  76. LeSage, J., & Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064254
  77. Li, X., Gong, S., Shi, Q., & Fang, Y. (2023). A review of ecosystem services based on bibliometric analysis: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Sustainability, 15(23), Article 16277. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316277
  78. Li, X., Li, Y., & Lin, J. (2022). A systemic model for implementing land value capture to fund public transport. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 156, 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.12.013
  79. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  80. Lin, Y., & Wei, Y. D. (2025). Transit-oriented development and socio-spatial inequality in metropolitan China. Cities, 139, Article 104465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104465
  81. Liu, Z., Meng, Y., Li, L., & Wang, Y. (2025). A review of the impact of urban form on building carbon emissions. Buildings, 15(15), Article 2604. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15152604
  82. Lwasa, S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Simon, D., et al. (2022). Urban systems and other settlements. In P. R. Shukla et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Chapter 8). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.010
  83. Masuda, H., Okitasari, E., Morita, K., Katramiz, T., Hijioka, Y., & Ishikawa, Y. (2021). SDGs mainstreaming at the local level: Case studies from Japan. Sustainability Science, 16(5), 1539–1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00977-0
  84. Medda, F. (2012). Land value capture finance for transport accessibility: A review. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.07.013
  85. Mehmood, R. T., Cervero, R., & Rafiq, R. (2024). Assessing urban land parcel dynamics driven by bus rapid transit: Evidence from Lahore. Urban Science, 8(4), Article 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040227
  86. Menoni, S. (2025). Urban planning for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: A review at the crossroads of research and practice. Sustainability, 17(20), Article 9092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209092
  87. Menoni, S., & Ferreira, A. (2025). Integrating climate adaptation into local spatial planning: Territorial climate planning in practice. Land, 14(8), Article 1430. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081430
  88. Mickwitz, P. (2003). A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: Context and key concepts. Evaluation, 9(4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003094004
  89. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  90. Mohammad, S. I., Graham, D. J., Melo, P. C., & Anderson, R. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the impact of rail projects on land and property values. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.013
  91. Moran, P. A. P. (1950). Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika, 37(1–2), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/37.1-2.17
  92. Mottelson, J. (2023). On the impact of urban planning in contexts with limited enforcement of building and planning regulations: A study of the urban form of planned and unplanned informal settlements in Maputo, Mozambique. PLOS ONE, 18(9), Article e0292045. https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0292045
  93. Mukherjee, I., Coban, M. K., & Bali, A. S. (2021). Policy capacities and effective policy design: A review. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09420-8
  94. Nadin, V., Fernández Maldonado, A. M., Zonneveld, W., Stead, D., & Dąbrowski, M. (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 55(8), 1290–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363
  95. Nadin, V., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., & Fernández Maldonado, A. M. (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 55(5), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363
  96. Nowak, M. J., Bera, M., Lazoglou, M., Olcina-Cantos, J., Vagiona, D. G., Monteiro, R., & Mitrea, A. (2024). Comparison of urban climate change adaptation plans in selected European cities from a legal and spatial perspective. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156327
  97. Nowak, M. J., Monteiro, R., Olcina-Cantos, J., & Vagiona, D. G. (2023). Spatial planning response to the challenges of climate change adaptation: An analysis of selected instruments and good practices in Europe. Sustainability, 15(13), Article 10431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310431
  98. OECD. (2017). The governance of land use in OECD countries: Policy analysis and recommendations. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268609-en
  99. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589
  100. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  101. Patano, M., & Camarda, D. (2023). Managing complex knowledge in sustainable planning: A semantic-based model for multiagent water-related concepts. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 11774. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511774
  102. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
  103. Qiu, L., Chen, W., Chen, X., & Gao, H. (2022). Integrating ecosystem services into planning practice: Situation, challenges, and inspirations. Land, 11(4), Article 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040545
  104. Qiu, W., & Xu, Y. (2022). Integrating climate change mitigation into spatial planning: Practices and challenges in Chinese cities. Urban Climate, 42, Article 101116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101116
  105. Restemeyer, B., & Witte, P. (2024). A policy instruments palette for spatial quality: Evaluating integrated spatial policies in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 145, Article 107799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107799
  106. Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Gascon, M., Pérez-León, D., & Mudu, P. (2019). Urban and transport planning related exposures and mortality: A health impact assessment for cities. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3(9), e346–e357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30215-3
  107. Ronchi, S. (2018). Ecosystem services for spatial planning: Innovative approaches and challenges for practical applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5
  108. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/260169
  109. Runhaar, H., Driessen, P., & Uittenbroek, C. (2014). Towards a systematic framework for the analysis of environmental policy integration. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(4), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1647
  110. Sánchez-Vaquerizo, P., García-Almirall, P., & Blanes, J. (2025). Data-driven urban digital twins and critical infrastructure. Urban Planning, 10(3), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v10i3.7440
  111. Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., & Reilly, M. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLOS ONE, 6(8), Article e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777
  112. Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109
  113. Seto, K. C., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Dhakal, S., et al. (2021). To net-zero and beyond: Urban climate mitigation in the 21st century. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46, 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-050120-113117
  114. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  115. Song, Y., Huang, B., Cai, J., & Chen, B. (2018). Dynamic assessments of population exposure to urban greenspace using multi-source big data. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.061
  116. Stead, D. (2021). Conceptualising the policy tools of spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 29(3), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726290
  117. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). https://doi.org/10.7275/z6fm-2e34
  118. Suzuki, H., Murakami, J., Hong, Y.-H., & Tamayose, B. (2013). Financing transit-oriented development with land values. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9452-5
  119. Tesfay, A., Gebremedhin, B., & Gebrehiwot, T. (2025). Farmland consolidation, spatial planning and rural income inequality in Ethiopia. Land, 14(7), Article 1483. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071483
  120. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
  121. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  122. Trein, P., Fischer, M., Maggetti, M., & Sarti, F. (2023). Empirical research on policy integration: A review and new directions. Policy Sciences, 56(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09489-9
  123. Twohig-Bennett, C., & Jones, A. (2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030
  124. Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7
  125. van den Ende, M., Runhaar, H., & Arts, B. (2025). The transformative potential of environmental governance integration for sustainable land use: The case of subsidence in the Dutch peatlands. Environmental Policy and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2147
  126. van der Jagt, A. P. N., Tozer, L., Toxopeus, H., & Runhaar, H. (2023). Policy mixes for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions: An analysis of six European countries and the European Union. Environmental Science & Policy, 139, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.011
  127. van Oosten, J., Gunarso, P., Koesoetjahjo, I., & Wiersum, F. (2018). Strategies for achieving environmental policy integration at the landscape level. Environmental Science & Policy, 83, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.002
  128. van Zoest, S., et al. (2024). Explaining value capture implementation in New York City. Urban Affairs Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231222174
  129. Voskamp, I. M., de Wal, M. M., Verburg, P. H., & Bregt, A. K. (2021). The state of the art of tools for urban green infrastructure planning under climate change. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 6381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116381
  130. Voskamp, I. M., de Luca, C., Polo-Ballinas, M. B., Hulsman, H., & Brolsma, R. (2021). Nature-based solutions tools for planning urban climate adaptation: State of the art. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 6381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116381
  131. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2), Article 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230
  132. Wang, S., Wang, J., & Zhang, X. (2018). Can spatial planning really mitigate carbon dioxide emissions in urban areas? A case study in Taipei. Landscape and Urban Planning, 169, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.08.001
  133. Wang, X., & Levinson, D. (2023). Access-based land value appreciation for assessing transportation project benefits. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 16(1), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2023.2297
  134. Wang, Y., & Jin, X. (2025). Land use, spatial planning, and their influence on carbon emissions: A comprehensive review. Land, 14(7), Article 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071406
  135. Wang, Y., Jin, X., Tang, G., Zhou, Y., & Xu, Z. (2025). Land use, spatial planning, and their influence on carbon emissions: Evidence from Northeast China. Land, 14(7), Article 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071406
  136. Wetchler, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
  137. Xie, M., Liao, X., & Yaguchi, T. (2025). The Policy Spatial Footprint: Causal identification of land value capitalization using network-time exposure. Land, 14(11), Article 2240. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112240
  138. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
  139. Xiong, J., & Yao, Y. (2025). Spatial evolution and planning strategies of metropolitan green belts. Land, 14(11), Article 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112239
  140. Yao, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, L., & Zhou, L. (2021). Characteristics and evolution of China’s industry policy tools based on text mining. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 13105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313105
  141. Zhu, Z., Zhang, X., Zhao, J., & Li, Y. (2025). Spatiotemporal dynamics and multi-scale equity of urban park accessibility in Chinese cities. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(9), Article 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi14090361