All rights reservedMuñoz Gielen, Demetrio2023-12-072023-12-072015978-80-01-05782-7https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/1079Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July, 2015Many say that Land Readjustment (LR) can potentially resolve the stagnation of development that accrues from scattered ownership and improve the financing of public infrastructure in private land development. Under this enthusiasm for LR lay the arguments that it avoids the need of expropriating land, empowers landowners to develop their land and provides the necessary public infrastructure at a lower or even no cost for the public budget. This enthusiasm has enticed the Dutch government, who asked an expert committee to submit a draft proposal for a LR-regulation and since the summer of 2014 is working towards a draft LR act. However, LR not always resolves the mentioned problems and in some countries it is even a ‘dead word’ in legislation. Unfortunately, no much literature analyse which aspects of LR-regulations might be critical in practice. Supporting on the experience with the German and Spanish LR this paper offers a framework of analysis to evaluate whether a Dutch LRregulation might work or not in practice.EnglishopenAccessconferenceObject685-700