OP
O.V. Puls
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
The valuable space we leave unused
A policy-oriented analysis of vacancy typologies and mobilisation strategies to address the Dutch housing crisis
The Netherlands is in the middle of a housing crisis, with a structural shortage of around 226,000 homes to reach the government's 2% target (Gopal et al., 2025). At the same time, 194,500 dwellings are registered as vacant (CBS, 2025). On paper that almost closes the gap, but once vacancy under renovation, demolition, sale or low energy performance is deducted, only around 12,600 homes remain that could realistically be returned to use (Keijzer, 2024). Vacancy mobilisation is therefore a complement to new construction, not a substitute.
This study examines under which conditions vacant homes in the Netherlands can be effectively mobilised and what lessons the Flemish approach offers. The research uses document analysis and nine semi-structured expert interviews. Amsterdam and Ghent are the primary cases, compared through a Most Similar Systems Design (Anckar, 2008). The Hague and Leuven are added as supplementary observations to test whether the findings hold beyond the two primary cities. Policy instruments are evaluated on four dimensions: mobilisation, efficiency, feasibility and goodness of fit (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998; Howlett, 2017).
The main finding is that mobilisation works through deterrence. Owners act before sanctions or taxes are actually applied, because the credible prospect of consequences is enough to change behaviour. This pattern appears in the Dutch experimental system (Amsterdam), the Dutch standard system (The Hague) and the Flemish system (Ghent and Leuven), which means the credibility of the system as a whole matters more than the specific instrument chosen. The differences between Amsterdam and Ghent follow mainly from the institutional setting in which the instruments operate, not from local policy choices. All three systems share a blind spot for compassionate and legal vacancy, where the cause lies in inheritance, illness, family conflict or emotional attachment rather than a strategic choice by the owner.
The study links vacancy typologies to instrument typologies through a goodness-of-fit schema. This schema maps which type of instrument theoretically suits which type of vacancy, and it is assessed against municipal practice. The study also argues that the effectiveness of vacancy policy should not be measured only by the number of sanctions imposed, because credible escalation may already induce owners to act before enforcement becomes necessary. This is particularly relevant for the Dutch context, where the Wet Aanpak Leegstand and the municipal vacancy tax will expand the available policy mix.
Although vacancy mobilisation cannot solve the housing crisis by itself, it remains important. Long-term visible vacancy carries a cost that the limited numbers do not capture, and vacancy policy matters because valuable space should not remain unnecessarily unused. ...
This study examines under which conditions vacant homes in the Netherlands can be effectively mobilised and what lessons the Flemish approach offers. The research uses document analysis and nine semi-structured expert interviews. Amsterdam and Ghent are the primary cases, compared through a Most Similar Systems Design (Anckar, 2008). The Hague and Leuven are added as supplementary observations to test whether the findings hold beyond the two primary cities. Policy instruments are evaluated on four dimensions: mobilisation, efficiency, feasibility and goodness of fit (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998; Howlett, 2017).
The main finding is that mobilisation works through deterrence. Owners act before sanctions or taxes are actually applied, because the credible prospect of consequences is enough to change behaviour. This pattern appears in the Dutch experimental system (Amsterdam), the Dutch standard system (The Hague) and the Flemish system (Ghent and Leuven), which means the credibility of the system as a whole matters more than the specific instrument chosen. The differences between Amsterdam and Ghent follow mainly from the institutional setting in which the instruments operate, not from local policy choices. All three systems share a blind spot for compassionate and legal vacancy, where the cause lies in inheritance, illness, family conflict or emotional attachment rather than a strategic choice by the owner.
The study links vacancy typologies to instrument typologies through a goodness-of-fit schema. This schema maps which type of instrument theoretically suits which type of vacancy, and it is assessed against municipal practice. The study also argues that the effectiveness of vacancy policy should not be measured only by the number of sanctions imposed, because credible escalation may already induce owners to act before enforcement becomes necessary. This is particularly relevant for the Dutch context, where the Wet Aanpak Leegstand and the municipal vacancy tax will expand the available policy mix.
Although vacancy mobilisation cannot solve the housing crisis by itself, it remains important. Long-term visible vacancy carries a cost that the limited numbers do not capture, and vacancy policy matters because valuable space should not remain unnecessarily unused. ...
The Netherlands is in the middle of a housing crisis, with a structural shortage of around 226,000 homes to reach the government's 2% target (Gopal et al., 2025). At the same time, 194,500 dwellings are registered as vacant (CBS, 2025). On paper that almost closes the gap, but once vacancy under renovation, demolition, sale or low energy performance is deducted, only around 12,600 homes remain that could realistically be returned to use (Keijzer, 2024). Vacancy mobilisation is therefore a complement to new construction, not a substitute.
This study examines under which conditions vacant homes in the Netherlands can be effectively mobilised and what lessons the Flemish approach offers. The research uses document analysis and nine semi-structured expert interviews. Amsterdam and Ghent are the primary cases, compared through a Most Similar Systems Design (Anckar, 2008). The Hague and Leuven are added as supplementary observations to test whether the findings hold beyond the two primary cities. Policy instruments are evaluated on four dimensions: mobilisation, efficiency, feasibility and goodness of fit (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998; Howlett, 2017).
The main finding is that mobilisation works through deterrence. Owners act before sanctions or taxes are actually applied, because the credible prospect of consequences is enough to change behaviour. This pattern appears in the Dutch experimental system (Amsterdam), the Dutch standard system (The Hague) and the Flemish system (Ghent and Leuven), which means the credibility of the system as a whole matters more than the specific instrument chosen. The differences between Amsterdam and Ghent follow mainly from the institutional setting in which the instruments operate, not from local policy choices. All three systems share a blind spot for compassionate and legal vacancy, where the cause lies in inheritance, illness, family conflict or emotional attachment rather than a strategic choice by the owner.
The study links vacancy typologies to instrument typologies through a goodness-of-fit schema. This schema maps which type of instrument theoretically suits which type of vacancy, and it is assessed against municipal practice. The study also argues that the effectiveness of vacancy policy should not be measured only by the number of sanctions imposed, because credible escalation may already induce owners to act before enforcement becomes necessary. This is particularly relevant for the Dutch context, where the Wet Aanpak Leegstand and the municipal vacancy tax will expand the available policy mix.
Although vacancy mobilisation cannot solve the housing crisis by itself, it remains important. Long-term visible vacancy carries a cost that the limited numbers do not capture, and vacancy policy matters because valuable space should not remain unnecessarily unused.
This study examines under which conditions vacant homes in the Netherlands can be effectively mobilised and what lessons the Flemish approach offers. The research uses document analysis and nine semi-structured expert interviews. Amsterdam and Ghent are the primary cases, compared through a Most Similar Systems Design (Anckar, 2008). The Hague and Leuven are added as supplementary observations to test whether the findings hold beyond the two primary cities. Policy instruments are evaluated on four dimensions: mobilisation, efficiency, feasibility and goodness of fit (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998; Howlett, 2017).
The main finding is that mobilisation works through deterrence. Owners act before sanctions or taxes are actually applied, because the credible prospect of consequences is enough to change behaviour. This pattern appears in the Dutch experimental system (Amsterdam), the Dutch standard system (The Hague) and the Flemish system (Ghent and Leuven), which means the credibility of the system as a whole matters more than the specific instrument chosen. The differences between Amsterdam and Ghent follow mainly from the institutional setting in which the instruments operate, not from local policy choices. All three systems share a blind spot for compassionate and legal vacancy, where the cause lies in inheritance, illness, family conflict or emotional attachment rather than a strategic choice by the owner.
The study links vacancy typologies to instrument typologies through a goodness-of-fit schema. This schema maps which type of instrument theoretically suits which type of vacancy, and it is assessed against municipal practice. The study also argues that the effectiveness of vacancy policy should not be measured only by the number of sanctions imposed, because credible escalation may already induce owners to act before enforcement becomes necessary. This is particularly relevant for the Dutch context, where the Wet Aanpak Leegstand and the municipal vacancy tax will expand the available policy mix.
Although vacancy mobilisation cannot solve the housing crisis by itself, it remains important. Long-term visible vacancy carries a cost that the limited numbers do not capture, and vacancy policy matters because valuable space should not remain unnecessarily unused.