Land-use policy architectures for brownfield regeneration: A comparative analysis of Spain and the Netherlands

Brownfield regeneration is increasingly central to sustainable land-use policy in Europe, as it supports soil protection, compact urban development, urban restructuring, and reduced pressure on greenfield land. Yet redevelopment remains difficult because contaminated land is shaped not only by market conditions, but also by the institutional design of planning, remediation, financing, and intergovernmental coordination. This article compares Spain and the Netherlands to examine how different land-use policy architectures condition brownfield regeneration. Using a qualitative comparative approach that combines doctrinal legal analysis with institutional interpretation, it analyzes four dimensions: risk allocation, planning–environment integration, value-capture mechanisms, and governance modes. The findings identify two contrasting models. Spain operates through a codified and redistributive framework in which liability and value capture are largely predefined by statute, while remediation and planning remain institutionally differentiated. The Netherlands exhibits a more integrated and adaptive model in which environmental regulation is more closely embedded within spatial planning and redevelopment relies more heavily on negotiated coordination and local administrative capacity. The comparison shows that legislative integration alone does not ensure effective regeneration. What matters more is the alignment between liability rules, financial design, and governance capacity. The article concludes that brownfield redevelopment should be understood as a land-use policy problem of institutional coordination, not merely as a technical question of remediation or a market question of land valorization.