Specific Issues of Urban Sprawl in Bulgaria

The first conclusion is, no doubt, that processes of urban sprawl have emerged in Bulgaria during the last couple of decades and already have changed the suburban patterns in the outskirts of Sofia. This is a simple, but critically important conclusion, because so far Bulgarian planners have underestimated this threat and, even, have failed to identify it. The main reasons for this omission were due to lack of experience with similar problems and, mainly, to specific traditions relating to comparatively high, though typical European densities and compact urban forms. Yet, due to its unplanned nature and scattered forms, sprawl always generates un- sustainable urban processes. All facts and findings of previous studies and the present one confirm the second main conclusion that, undoubtedly, Sofia suburbanisation pattern is of Western type, so it is characterized by a number of associated problems and issues like overconsumption of land, inefficient use of infrastructure and other resources. At the same time, Bulgarian sprawl in many aspects is shaped by local traditions established in the course of centuries and (especially, the 20th century) by the specific historical development – both socio-economic and urban. Sofia’s new suburbs are more compact than typical Western suburbs and they are characterized by higher densities and higher levels of social mix and mix of uses. Eventually, the third main conclusion is that suburbanisation around Sofia and around other big cities in the country is speeding up and, thus, Bulgarian sprawl turns closer to the Western patterns. This means that policy measures are already needed to avoid associated problems, especially in view of the insufficient land resources of Bulgaria. Apparently, all these issues should be subject to thorough and in depth studies as next steps of research in this area in order to elaborate efficient instruments of relevant policies

Coasean versus Pigovian solutions to the problem of social cost: the role of common entitlements

This paper works towards drawing a proper relationship between the Coasean and Pigovian approaches that should be based on the distinction between individual/private and shared/common entitlements. Because of the specific goals of his work, Coase (1960) does not make an explicit distinction between the two types of property rights; however, there are basic differences in their management, so this distinction is essential. According to Coase, the definition of property rights facilitates the optimal allocation of private entitlements through Coasean bargaining and market transactions. This paper suggests that shared/common entitlements should also be taken into account. The shared/common entitlements alternative is so important that it should be explicitly outlined in Coase’s entitlement optimisation assumption. When resources are shared among members of groups and communities, Coasean bargaining and market deals may be carried out only after co-owners organize and collective management is established in order to negotiate the reallocation of entitlements. For Coasean bargaining to take place in these situations, centralized (i.e. Pigovian) rules and regulations should first be adopted by the groups/communities. Hence, in cases of common property rights, the Coasean and Pigovian approaches are complementary to one another. In such cases, Coasean bargaining is not a rejection of centralized Pigovian regulation but is a means to its improvement. And vice versa: relevant Pigovian rules adopted by the co-owners of entitlements are necessary institutional arrangements enabling Coasean market solutions

The changing roles of planning and the market in the processes of urban growth in Belgrade and Sofia

This paper studies the changing roles of planning and the market in the context of urban growth and suburbanization in the capitals of Serbia and Bulgaria, specifically with regard to the socio-economic changes experienced in Southeast Europe over the past decades. With a focus on the post-socialist period, the work also examines specific features of the socialist period, so as to make important distinctions between the two. The research question in this paper is: Is planning or the market responsible for the form of growth that has occurred in Sofia and Belgrade? One methodological problem for the study is that in reality, most urban processes are to a degree both market driven and centrally planned. Thus, it can be difficult to distinguish between the distinct roles and outcomes of planning and the market. To solve this problem, the paper analyzes situations in which either planning or the market is dominant, so as to be able to clearly determine the impact of each mechanism on the resultant development. The paper concludes that urban growth and suburbanization are generally engendered by market forces, whereas the role of planning is to improve and refine the action of the market. When planning ignores the market, it results in failed or inefficient urban forms. However when planning is absent, urban development fails to meet reasonable standards

Regulating market-led urban expansion in the new master plans of Sofia and Belgrade

Like most European cities, cities in South-east Europe (SEE) have been growing throughout the 20th century, however, since the end of the 1980s, the mechanisms of urban growth and expansion have changed radically: from development fully determined by central planning to market-led urban development. This paper examines how planning in large SEE cities is coping with the challenge to balance the action of the market and achieve planning goals relating to the form of urban growth and expansion. As case studies we analyse the master plans of Sofia and Belgrade and their implementation. We have two research questions: first, whether planning in the two cities has considered the role of the market when defining its objectives, measures and solutions regarding the forms of urban growth and the development of in suburban areas, and, second, whether planning has been able to influence the market or cooperate with it in order to achieve its objectives in suburban development.Rad je rezultat i bilateralnog istraživačkog projekta "Support to Process of Urban Development in Serbia" (SPUDS), No. 160503 [http://p3.snf.ch/Project-160503], 2015-2018, u okviru SCOPES programa uz finansijsku podršku Swiss National Science Foundation

Urban Growth and Urbanization of Sofiа, Belgrade and Rome: the Interaction between Urban Planning and the Market

The paper explores the problems of sustainable and resilient development of the cities in Eastern and South-east Europe on the examples of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome and their urban regions. The research draws comparisons to the forms, patterns and mechanisms of their development.Editors: Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D Slaev, Diliana Daskalov

The Transaction Costs of Sustainability: Coase’s Proviso and the Roles of Environmentalists and the Government

Environmentalists believe that the Coasean approach is economically efficient but environmentally unsustainable. While acknowledging that this approach is not always sustainable, this paper emphasises its important advantage—the presence of a criterion determining when an activity will/will not lead to an efficient/sustainable outcome. Coase formulated this criterion on what is termed in this paper “Coase’s proviso”—the balance between the net benefits of an institutional change (rearrangement of entitlements) and transaction costs associated with this change. The article also defines the terms “best use”, “second (or next) best use” and “best user”. On this basis, the paper restates Coase’s proviso and argues that there is no inherent contradiction between economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. According to the restated proviso, when the transaction costs associated with the institutional transformation establishing the best use of a resource are lower than the net benefits of this transformation, the result will be economically efficient and environmentally sustainable. However, if the transaction costs outweigh the net benefits of the best use, a second (or next) best use may be established, which will still be economically efficient, but most likely environmentally unsustainable. The paper explores a case study to check the relevance of the restated proviso

The Transaction Costs of Sustainability: Coase’s Proviso and the Roles of Environmentalists and the Government

Environmentalists believe that the Coasean approach is economically efficient but environmentally unsustainable. While acknowledging that this approach is not always sustainable, this paper emphasises its important advantage—the presence of a criterion determining when an activity will/will not lead to an efficient/sustainable outcome. Coase formulated this criterion on what is termed in this paper “Coase’s proviso”—the balance between the net benefits of an institutional change (rearrangement of entitlements) and transaction costs associated with this change. The article also defines the terms “best use”, “second (or next) best use” and “best user”. On this basis, the paper restates Coase’s proviso and argues that there is no inherent contradiction between economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. According to the restated proviso, when the transaction costs associated with the institutional transformation establishing the best use of a resource are lower than the net benefits of this transformation, the result will be economically efficient and environmentally sustainable. However, if the transaction costs outweigh the net benefits of the best use, a second (or next) best use may be established, which will still be economically efficient, but most likely environmentally unsustainable. The paper explores a case study to check the relevance of the restated proviso

The Challenges of Implementing Sustainable Development: The Case of Sofia’s Master Plan

In this paper, we explore how master planning promotes and implements particular urban development patterns and, more generally, contributes to sustainability. Our goal is to understand the link between urban growth intentions articulated through the master planning process and realisation of its specific forms, e.g., monocentric or polycentric, compact or dispersed. As a case study, we examine the current General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of the Bulgarian capital Sofia against the city’s actual development pattern. We observe that the primary goals of the GUDP are to promote a polycentric urban structure and low-density expansion, as well as preserve green edges. While the question of whether and how these goals reflect the sustainability ideal requires further consideration, there are some indications that Sofia’s GUDP may not be effective in encouraging sustainable forms of growth. Substantial inconsistencies exist between the plan’s overall goals and some of its measures and implementation tools. The results on the ground suggest that, despite the plan’s low-density aspirations, Sofia is becoming more compact and densified, while losing its green edges and failing to redirect growth to its northern territories where ample space and opportunities exist. We conclude that employing the achievements of research on sustainability and developing relevant implementation tools such as more effective zoning regulations and viable suburban transportation infrastructure are necessary for realising both the patterns proposed through master planning and achieving sustainable urban growth

Factors of urban sprawl in Bulgaria

Urban sprawl has become a topical urban issue first in North America and later in Western Europe. It turned into a major challenge to urban sustainability. However, sprawl in Western Europe has displayed many specific features different than that in North America and these features are related to the concrete circumstances in the two continents. The social, economic and urban situation in the new European democracies is also quite different and this inevitably has its impact on the forms of sprawl. One of the main characteristics of sprawl is that it is considered to be market-led. More precisely, a major factor is the lack of balance between market trends and planning policy that allows for the market players to determine the use of their plots in suburban locations with little reference to the public interests and issues of sustainability. As the countries in Eastern and South-eastern Europe have already made certain progress on their way to market society, the problems of sprawl were faced in these countries too. The goal of the paper is to apply widely accepted definitions of sprawl to the processes in the suburbs of Sofia and, thus, to assess whether these are processes of sprawl. It also aims to study the specific traditions and residential preferences of Sofia’s population in order to identify specific characteristics and aspects of the Bulgarian model. The findings of the paper confirm that Bulgaria’s capital Sofia is experiencing processes of urban sprawl, particularly in its southern suburban areas - in the foot of Vitosha Mountain. Next, these processes display strong regional characteristics. So far sprawl in Bulgaria is less intensive than that in Western Europe but also than that in the post-socialist countries in Central Europe and in Baltic states. Eventually, the urban forms of Bulgarian sprawl tend to be denser and with mix of single-family and multi-family residential types and mix of land uses

The changing roles of planning and the market in the processes of urban growth in Belgrade and Sofia

This paper studies the changing roles of planning and the market in the context of urban growth and suburbanization in the capitals of Serbia and Bulgaria, specifically with regard to the socio-economic changes experienced in Southeast Europe over the past decades. With a focus on the post-socialist period, the work also examines specific features of the socialist period, so as to make important distinctions between the two. The research question in this paper is: Is planning or the market responsible for the form of growth that has occurred in Sofia and Belgrade? One methodological problem for the study is that in reality, most urban processes are to a degree both market driven and centrally planned. Thus, it can be difficult to distinguish between the distinct roles and outcomes of planning and the market. To solve this problem, the paper analyzes situations in which either planning or the market is dominant, so as to be able to clearly determine the impact of each mechanism on the resultant development. The paper concludes that urban growth and suburbanization are generally engendered by market forces, whereas the role of planning is to improve and refine the action of the market. When planning ignores the market, it results in failed or inefficient urban forms. However when planning is absent, urban development fails to meet reasonable standards. [Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. III 47014 and Project Grant Agreement no. 282834: European Union FP7-ENV.2011.2.1.5-1 (TURaS Project)