Achieving zero net land take requires a shift from a linear approach to land use that is largely dependent on greenfield development to a circular one that builds on efficient land use and the recycling and restoration of land. The importance of a circular approach to land use is underlined in both the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 (European Commission 2021a) and in the Soil Monitoring Law (2025/2360). The strategy introduces the “land take mitigation hierarchy” adopted from ecological sciences and environmental impact assessments, while the directive refers to the same hierarchical steps as “land take mitigation principles”. Given that land use changes are administered within national borders, the intention of the hierarchy is to present a strong case for taking action to limit land take rather than providing a comprehensive toolbox of policy instruments for this purpose. Keeping this in mind, the mitigation hierarchy is detailed below, with examples of instruments and approaches provided for each step. The examples given in this section are not Nordic-specific.
The land take mitigation hierarchy consists of four steps designed to be considered sequentially and/or in combination in spatial planning (Table 1):
Avoid land take and soil sealing,
Reuse already taken or sealed land,
Minimise taking or sealing land in favourable condition and
Compensate land taken or sealed.
Policy instruments and approaches with the potential to reduce land take or increase land restoration can be assigned to the mitigation hierarchy steps. Policy instruments are defined here as techniques or mechanisms used by the governmental authority to translate policy goals into practice. In some cases, it is challenging to determine which category a particular instrument or approach falls into. Similar types of interventions (such as financial incentives, information and land use restrictions) can furthermore be employed at several steps of the hierarchy.
The first step calls for considering whether additional land take and soil sealing could be avoided. Avoidance in essence means preventing new greenfield developments through measures such as bans on planning deviations and exceptions outside urban areas (Lacoere and Leinfelder, 2023), urban growth boundaries (Gradinaru et al., 2023) and downzoning the supply of buildable land in existing land use plans (Lacoere et al., 2023). Avoidance instruments have a strong direct positive impact on soil resources and quality of nature locally but can be politically challenging to implement. Indeed, data show that cities continue to grow at their fringes and along transportation corridors (Hersperger et al., 2020). The causal chains of avoidance instruments are also complex and difficult to verify. They may inflate land prices and contribute to housing supply shortages (Korthals Altes, 2006). Without regional coordination, there is furthermore a risk that limiting the quantity of land consumption in one location shifts it to another (Hersperger et al., 2020).
The second step of the hierarchy considers that it is better to reuse land already taken or sealed than to allocate land use changes towards natural or semi-natural land. The ambiguity of the land take concept complicates determination of what should be considered reuse of land (see e.g. Decoville and Feltgen, 2023; Evers, 2024). Nevertheless, there is substantial potential for reuse of land, for example through brownfield development, utilisation of vacant buildings and provision of green areas on previously built-up areas. Policy instruments such as discounts on land use fees and information targeted at private landowners can be used to encourage reuse of land. Since reuse cases may involve additional costs that need to be distributed across public and private actors (such as the costs of purifying contaminated land), it is important that the governance framework includes instruments that allow such issues to be addressed in an effective and transparent manner (Puustinen et al., 2022). Reuse can also mean de-sealing of land, i.e. removing asphalt and concrete and increasing the amount of permeable surface. The effects of de-sealing on soil functioning are not yet well understood. De-sealing initiatives are, however, increasingly being implemented to advance objectives such as heat island mitigation and flood risk management (Vieillard et al., 2024).
The third step requires minimising land take and soil sealing of land in favourable condition. This step of the hierarchy is also difficult to define due to the multifaceted and ambiguous criterion of “favourable condition”. Generally, it can be understood to cover areas with high potential for ecosystem service provision, such as highly fertile arable land, forest land with high natural value, and green spaces within the existing urban footprint. Lacoere and Leinfelder (2023) view, in particular, supplementary restrictive regulations, such as restrictive building regulations for recreational and park zones, as instruments that minimise land take. Some authors interpret minimising more from the perspective of increasing (urban) land use intensity (Decoville and Feltgen, 2023). With this emphasis, incremental densification processes such as infill development and building extensions are important ways to reduce land take (Ehrhardt et al., 2025). Various economic and fiscal tools can be used to incentivise such processes. It is also possible to disincentivise land take and soil sealing, for example by charging fees for soil sealing or imposing higher taxes on converted farmland.
Finally, as a fourth step, compensation measures should be applied if, despite avoiding, reusing and minimising efforts, land use changes create a new artificial footprint. Decoville and Feltgen (2026) define compensation as the act of de-artificialising a surface area equivalent to new (urban) development. However, the problem is that soil sealing cannot be exactly compensated for by doing “something else, somewhere else”, because soil functions are location-specific (European Commission 2012). Compensating should therefore be viewed as measures that are equivalent and related to the ecosystem functions lost. This means that compensation measures should be designed to restore or improve soil functions to avoid wider adverse impacts of soil sealing. For example, if land take leads to loss of water retention capacity, the compensation measures should aim to increase retention capacity in the catchment area. Compensation measures that enhance other soil functions than those lost should be seen as a last resort (European Commission 2012). Compensation for land take has been limited so far (Decoville and Feltgen, 2026). New compensation instruments are, however, increasingly being introduced into legislation in various countries. The new Nature Conservation Act in Finland, for example, introduces voluntary biodiversity offsetting as a conservation instrument (Seppälä et al., 2026).