Land readjustment is on the one hand widely acclaimed as one of the alternatives for land expropriation in spatial planning and development processes, yet on the other hand criticised as being an instrument that is not always solving the socio-spatial problems for which it was actually employed in the first place. A vast amount of literature exists which compare land readjustment internationally and locally from a procedural, legal and economic point of view, however there still exists a research gap in evaluating to which extent social values and belief systems, or the redistribution thereof, are sufficiently represented in the readjustment outcomes. To investigate this aspect one needs a framework which captures, assesses and evaluates social values alongside economic values. Recent discussion about the use of indicators on spatial development and spatial injustice call for a greater relevance of incorporating more quantitative values related to property management and investment. Such qualitative values associated with strategic spatial development, changes in society, calls for ecological protection and new forms of land governance need to be better integrated in spatial development and land management processes. ‘Social’ values exists through the generation, legitimation and/or institutionalisation through social interactions. Social values systems are then sets of values which guide social behaviour and which provides agreed sets of frames for social actions. Social values in land management can be investigated through a theory of meta-governance of land, which assumes that processes and outcomes of land interventions are influence by co-existing and mutually influencing social value systems, which ultimately derive social outcomes such as (the perception of) inclusiveness, justice, fairness, stability, spatial responsibility, social responsibility (neighborship), (tenure) security, respect, and care. When assessing the degree to which such value systems are actively addressed and pursued in land readjustment processes then the documented evidence suggests that there is still a long way to go. Economic efficiency interest still outweigh the social interests. Hence, there is a need to re-evaluate and redesign land adjustment processes which can better incorporate social needs and social perceptions.      «

Land readjustment is on the one hand widely acclaimed as one of the alternatives for land expropriation in spatial planning and development processes, yet on the other hand criticised as being an instrument that is not always solving the socio-spatial problems for which it was actually employed in the first place. A vast amount of literature exists which compare land readjustment internationally and locally from a procedural, legal and economic point of view, however there still exists a researc...     »