vthand 3495, ontinue inning, sensu ving in Ameor- of the g.and nspore at and estate itand Libary Lonel Use. Plensng Coy by: Fdlwenf fais Dev] Geet s Sel ] B Fo Ske] evapin tee CMD Concepts of Land Use Change Management _ a turbulent eevironment fends to put an organization at odds ‘jah self high complexty neads to be addressed with intense inteloctual effet in the analysis of information and the planning {or contingencies, while high dynamism calls for a areal deal of ‘ociopoltical energy, for bargaining, compromising, and mobiiz~ ing, resuting in wo activites ...Inherently antithetical to each other —Rasenau 1800, 62 oe ‘American city and segional planning has been correctly described as a “turgaijent” tetivity dive to the complexity and dynamism of its social, physica, institutional, and policy environments. Within this changing practioe matrix planners mast Teany their wry into an uncestain future through a planning process that combines rational and adaptive techniques. No single theory of planning or urban change adequately describes the complex and dynamic reality of land use planning prac: tice under these conditions of competition, change, and reciprocity. ‘Because change is the only constant in turbulent times, a conceptual approach based on “management of land use change” comes closest to matching the reali- tyof planning practice. Under. this approach the goals of allJand.use-plancing 2 sties--intelligence collection, advance planning, development management, and problem solving—are to monitor and guide continuing change o best bene, ft the community. To do so, land planners must balance three competing st of Innd values social, market, and environmental. This balancing takes place through community discussion or “discourse” on the content and procedures of land use Change. The form ofthe eonsensus-buikdng proces influences the distrbation of pawer and influence over land use outcomes. Managing Land Use Change as Practice Rationale “Atthe core of local land use planning i the effort to influonco the direction of landuse change. This efforts caried out through the preparation and implemen tion of future land use plans and policies, through the review and approval of86 Part 4: Conceptual Framework development projects, through the recommendation of capital improvement pro: grams, and through participation in ongoing local government decision-making and problem solving, Both an intellectual and a sociopolitical activity, itis guided by a mixture of community values, professional standards, legal precedents, po- litical tactis, and long-range visions. This total effort, which we call “managing land use change,” i the fundamental rationale for the theory and practice of land use planning? The activity of land use planning combines analysis, synthesis, and consensus formation. On the analytical side, the methods are primarily quantitative and sta- tistical. On the synthesis side, the methods ave primarily qualitative and design- based. On the consensus formation side, the methods are primarily interactional and based on conflict management, Managing land use change is not simply pre- paring and adopting an “end state” master plan and expecting it to be built-out at the end of the twenty-year planning period. Although the approach includes an advance plan aimed at guiding future development, it also includes actions to ‘monitor and respond to change, to build consensus for planning goals and objec- tives, and to enlist publie building and spending powers in plan implementation. ‘Turbulence complicates change management. The history of U.S. planning exhibits continuing turbulence, as practitioners work within a complex, dynamic institutional and policy environment to solve a changing slate of urban problems, ‘Turbulence involves not only an inoreasing rate of social and technological change but also an apparent dectease in our ability to guide or predict that change (Schon 1971; Michael 1973; Perloff 1974; Hall 1989; Rosenau 1990). Rather than lead- ing ovents, i turbulent times planners are constantly responding to events, Mor. ley (1086, 5) identifies the characteristics of turbulence as accelerating rates of changes increasing scale of perturbations or shifts in conditions; —inereasing unpredictability of events; —a continuing sense of crisis; —frequent confrontations with problems so complex as to be inaccessible to normal intervention strategies; and -—increasing time spent on responding to unanticipated consequences of pre- vious actions. To account for the turbulent nature of the public domain, planning can be seen as a learning process in which the future is treated as an emergent state not completely predictable from present knowledge. Instead, plans are viewed 45 a series of approximations to be adapted to future conditions as those condi- tions become more evident. Lynch (1981, 115-16) speaks of the human settle- ment as a “learning ecology” in which actors are capable of consciously modify- ng the parts of the urban system, maintaining continuity while permitting progressive change. This requires methods for generating knowledge and agree- ing upon actions in the face of less-than-complete information. The goal is to recognize uncertainty without being paralyzed by it, The necessaty techniquesant pro- making guided ats, po- anaging ofland isensus nd sta- design- tional ‘lypre- out at des an ions to objec- tation, inning amie lems. hhange Schon Ulead- Mor Concepts of Land Use Change Management 37 ist be both rational in attempting to project and guide the future on the ba- of factual analysis and adaptive in responding strategically to unforeseen ‘hanges as they occur. Tn addition to sociopolitical change, land planners face continuing changes in their cliont communities through processes of growth and decline. They must E regularly monitor and interpret these processes in order to understand the stocks and flows of urbanization and to estimate the impacts of public intervention pol- + icies. They must engage in dialogue with the other players in the land use gatne, ©. adjusting rules and strategies in response to their changing demands and needs. © Their land use plans rarely deal with the ereation of totally new communities. = Occasionally, they deal with major changes in land development programs in re- sponse to new state or federal policies, new interpretations of local conditions, ot new political issucs. Typically, they deal with incremental additions of new urban. * Jand and infrastructure atthe fringe and deterioration of oder neighborhoods and > public facilities at the core, Ensuring that the cumulative impact of these incre- mental changes does not disturb community continuity but does foster progres- sive change, as Lynch suggests, is the land use game challenge. No single theory of planning or urban change adequately deseribes the full range and complexity of land use planning practice. Neither descriptive theories that purport to explain how planning and urban change do oceur nor normative theories that assert how planning and urban change should occur encompass the full dimensions of reality? Most individual planners fashion their own practice sidelines, building a working synthesis from a variety of experiential and theo- retical sources to respond to their working needs. Such syntheses must encom- pass both planning process theories to guide the making of plans and urban change content theories to guide the substance of plans. Asa foundation for our approach, ‘ve next review selected concepts from both the process and the content litera- ‘ture, Our purpose is not to recreate planning theory but simply to point out some useful ideas for land use planning. Planning Process Theories The sclence of muddling through may wall give way to the seience of modeling through. —Rasenau 1980, 324 ‘Competing planning process theories provide important but incomplete pro- cedural models for carrying out planning efforts. Of all these models, that best known and widely used for long-range planning is “rational planning,” with its systematic forward progression from goal setting to implementation and back again through a feedback loop (Figure 2-1). Rational planning is both a normative the- ory in that it advocates a particular format for making planning decisions and a descriptive theory in that it describes the steps that most planning processes at- tempt to follow.sep periean ne: nen SETI AT 38 Part 1: Conceptual Framework 1. Goals and objectives formulation ————__ 2. Design of alternative plans ~——_____| 3. Evaluation of consequences stu Plan revision 4, Choice of preferred plan 5. limplementation of adopted plan 6. Monitoring and feedback of outcomes Pee git Te Rationel Planning Modo: A Logicel Progression from GoakSetng to Im Plementation and Back ‘The rational planning approach, as applied to land use planning, consists of a series of activities: 1. goals and objectives formulation, in which community leaders and citizens help formulate a long-range vision; 2 design of altemativs, in which planners and advisory groups prepare alter native scenarios to achieve the vision; 3. evaluation of consequences, in which the projected costs and benefits of land use altematives are considere 4 choice of preferred alternative, in which community participants and plane ners settle on a consensus plan; 5 Implementation, in which the and use plan is adopted and carried out, yp- ically as part of a comprehensive plan; 6 monitoring and feedback of outcomes, in which the progress of development 4s compared with the objectives of the plan; and 7 plan revision, in which the plan is reanalyzed after a period of five years or so, and the re-planning process is begun, perhaps going back to afuridamen. tal restudy of goals and objectives andor alternatives design if major chang. 68 have oceurred, or perhaps only to reconsideration of implementation if adopted techniques are not effective, Ra respond to continuing change. However, procedures for citizon participation help bulld community acceptance of plan decisions, and day-to-day plan imple. Tantation and development mnanagement procedures respond to ongoing change, ‘The combination could be seon asa synthetic “rational-adaptive” model. Ia thi ‘model, plan-naking is primarily a rational analysis- and design-based activity,Concepts of Land Use Change Management 39 fhereas plan implementation is primarily an incremental administrative- and cal-based activity. Some examples of the land use plan preparation techniques associated with the rational model and the adaptive techniques used to carry out plans in a changing context are: Rational ‘Techniques Adaptive Techniques Data analysis Public participation and discourse ‘Trend projection Consensus-building and conflict resolution Supply and demand Monitoring and problem solving derivation System modeling Impact analysis and mitigation Goal and objective Capital budgeting and project review statements Plan design Plan evaluation and amendment ‘The sational model has come under fire from advocates of other deseriptive process theories. thas been argued that no one follows the pure rational model because of its exdebitant demands for information, its artificial separation of the stages of decision-riaking, and its unreasonable expectation for consideration of ad, itis claimed that decisions are made by “mud- ental” theory (Braybrooke and Lindblom 1989). ‘We do not quarrel with the idea that incremental adjustments figure into land use planning, but we take issue with the straw man definition of a pure and un- achievable rationality, We support the rational model's connection between goals, objectives, and policies staged progression from goal-setting to impl it use of logic and deduction to analyze relevant information. In com- pany with adaptive techniques, the rational model is the strongest available theo- retical foundation for land usé planning. ‘The rational model has also been criticized by advocates of competing norma- tive process theories such as “strategic” planning (Bryson and Einsweiler 1988; Bryson 1988), “critical theory” (Forester 1989), and dispute resolution (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987), who all argue for tho merits oftheir approaches We readily ‘concede that each of these alternative approaches offers some practical advantages, but rather than sceing them as alternatives we believe that their strengths can be incorporated into our rational-adaptive model. ‘Strategic planning narrows the task of more comprehensive analysis by focus- ing on only selected critical issues. But strategic planning relies on a rational pro- cess of assessing the environment, creating a vision of success, and selecting ac- tions in light of a range of possible futures. Critical theory insists on processes for open communication, including critiques of plans, among all affected interests ‘These processes are incorporated in participation and information-sharing tech niques commonly used in land use planning and development management. Al- ternative dispute resolution calls for involving all stakeholders in negotiating con-40 Part 1: Conceptual Framework sensus over plan disagreements, Consensus-building increasingly is inco, od into rational planning approaches, for example, the Plans the product of both rational analysis and nogot to *ptance” process (New Jersey State Planni As Habits its crtes, we beliove thatthe Fatonal model sil offre thc ‘most solid Platform for advance plan-making when combined with techniques for participa. tion and consensus-building. Not only is the notion oF choosing means toachieve: “defined ‘ids attietve to planners, but it also appeals to publics as a common- teak ‘6 anticipate the future. A rational-edaptive appronch is aworketle way realy the linkage of knowledge to action that Friedmann (1981) acne the hallmark of planning “The microelectronic revolution has boosted planes capacities to manage large Pees ofinformation and compare altomative strategies it more systematic ways, However, simply adding analytic and consensus-building capacity to the rational model does not deat with all ofthe elements of effective nd te ‘change man- seement, omitting the necessary parallel functions of intelligence collection, de, velopment management, and problem solving To remedy these planning process gaps, we propose at the end of this chapter model of community planning diseourse that supplements the rational model with extensive public. ‘participation, and, in the next chapter, a land planning pro- dea te ‘other necessary processes of intelligence collection, de- {lopment management, and problem solving. We belleve that the clatme nao by-advoeates of strategic planning, cxitical theory, dispute ma, and inere- _mental ng program in We now lock briefly at the potential sources of nrban change content ideas important to the practice of land use change management. Each of thove thea, "ies offers a lens for understanding land use chang, sporat- New Jersey state land use tiation with local interests in ‘ing Commission 199) Urban Change Content Theorles Competing urban change theories provide important, bt incomplete, models of urban change content. The most complete formulation is fourcl in political economy theories, which explain urban development in terms of culture driven cfforts to organize urban space to serve social needs, including both use for housing and business and for profit from real estate transactions (Logan and Molotek 3887) * Other theories offer more specialized views. Theories of good city forin Dagbose performance dimensions for assessing the spatial form ofeties (Lynch 1961). Land market theories deseribe the relationships between land owers, purchasers, and developers as land progresses from rural to urban (Kaiser and Tye 1070) and suggest how regulations impact on land sales and prices (Nelson 1988; Fischel 1989),corporat- eland use aterests in 381; Innes able way ves as the age large tie ways, > rational: age man- stion, de- ichapter al model iigpro- tion, de- ns made idinere- ‘gram ine nt ideas se theo- ‘models >olitical -driven rousing folotch "y form (lynch swners, cer and Nelson Concepts of Land Use Change Management 41 Classical economic theories, such as those of Alonso and Wingo, explain spa- structure through the workings of the market in allocating space to users © cording to supply and demand relationships in an equilibrium system. These the- ~ ories were used in a number of early urban development models (Chapin and Kaiser 1979, chs, 14, 15). Human ecology theories explain urban development through market-driven economic competition for urban space, in which each type of land user ends up in the location to which the user is best adapted (Hawley 1950). Maraian theories explain urban development in terms of the exploitation of workers by capitalists (Harvey 1981). Ecological theories describe the stages of natural environmental equilibrium and threats to this condition (Holling and Goldberg 1971). "The most relevant unit of analysis for the land planner is land use change. Is- sues of land and housing market performance, land conversion, economic com- petition for space, and environmental equilibrium offer various explanations of how land use change takes place and what effects that change has. However, the bottom line for the land planner is what occurs and is proposed to occur on the land. ‘Ths is not to say that these broader theories are not relevant, only that they do not provide sufficient guidance to the work of land planning. For such guid- ance the land planner turns to middle range concepts of planned urban change such as those of Thomas Rudel Rudel (1989) combines a number of the social science theories into two ap- proaches: human ecological and political-economic, He argues that both of these focus on “structural” variables and that a game theory approach is also needed to incorporate “process” variables because land use planning involves interactions among patties interested in land use. He characterizes the husman ecology ap- proach (e.g., Berry and Kasarda 1977) as assuming that market changes, often resulting from actions such as the construction of new highways, produce demo- ‘graphic changes and changes in land use regulations over time. “In mast cases & change in land use, repeated dozens of times on different parcels of land, gradu- ally alters the configuration of interests in @ community, and this change in inte tests causes a change in policy. For example, the steady construction of single-family homes gradually populates rural-urban fringe communities with people who lob- by for and eventually obtain restrictive land-use controls for residential areas” (Rude! 1989, 11). Rudel characterizes the political-economic approach as adding two missing variables: the influence of powerful political interests (such as developers versus organized interest groups) and the salience of land use conflicts shaped by differ- fences between places (such as urban versus rural areas). Within this group who sce political inequalities rather than market forces determining land use policies, ho includes Marxist theorists and authors of progressive case studies (e.g., Clavel 1986). He finds the model of cities as “growth machines” that Logan and Moloteh (1987) expound to be the most useful ofthe political economy models because it discusses not only the structural variables but also interactional variables.42 Part 1: Conceptual Framework Ruel builds his theory on the notion of the influence on futuro outcomes of sequential interactions among land use actors, Drawing from game theory ind- * ( ings that show that payers are more cooperative and less confletual they know that they wll play repeated rounds with the same playess, he develops the notion of tit frat" land use behavior He then identifies thee types olan! use change ateas: (1) slow-growing rural areas with relatively stable residents and low ratte of land use conversion, where informal tit-for-tat land use agreements among rbors predominate; (2) rapidly growing rural-urban places, whore growth raises mobility and destroys recurrent relationships necessaty for it-fo tat agree. ments, encouraging the adoption of legal rules (such as zoning) to control land use conversion; nd (3) slow-growing urban places, where stable neighbors con test cach development proposal andthe inereasoin disputes leads tormore cout cases and negotiated settlements, where a more formal tit-for-tat behavior fe one couraged.” In his view, community growth leads toa rural-to-urban development tal sequenco witha layering on of new types of regulatory procedures intwhich older procedures arena fully displaced so that informal agreement, zoning, and ‘mediation may coexist, Focusing on management of land use change provides a clear practice ratio- nale in which to organize concepts from vatious urban theories, Justification for planners assuming this responsibility s found inthe failure of both the market &nd politica institutions to deal adequately with management of land use change This responsibility has been assigned to planners through the standard store enabling acts that grant to loal governments the power to plan for and regu. Jate the use and development of their land, Although planning has not bev accorded the status of “fourth power of government” as Rexford Guy Tugwell recommenced in 140 (cited in Friedmann 1987, 106), it has been recogeroed as a legitimate agoney for.managing land use change within the consterints of democratic governance. ‘The content ofland use change management can be deseribed in terms of three value sets that must be brought into balance by and planning, We next renew saliont land use planning concepts associated with each ofthese value sste ec an aid to the balancing task. Three Sets of Land Use Values jeu anasing chonge, local land planners must deal with three powerful types | of land values. Social use values express the weight that people give to vans | express the weight that people give to land as a commodity; this view sees land ute ae areal esate profit medium, Heologieal values express the weight that peo- Ble give tothe natural systems on the lan; this view sees land use as a potentialutcomes of heory find- “they know the notion use change low rates nts among sre growth “tat agree itso} land abors con- 20re court vior is en- celopmen- ¥in which ming, and tice ratio- cation for ve market echange. ard state and regu- not been “Tugwell ognized raints of sof three ‘treview ats as an, ullypes various and use t values sland at poo- tential Concepts of Land Use Change Management 43 savironmental threat to be mitigated. These three values are sometimes separate = and competing, sometimes intermingled and supporting. Social Use Values Concepts of social use values include those derived from theories of urban form, = ictivities systems, and the social neighborhood. They all consider connections between the physical environment and the quality of life, although their underly- ing concerns differ, Urban form theories are concemed with designing the phys- ical environment, Activities systems theories are concerned with understanding the behavior patterns of urban residents. Neighborhood theories are concerned » with both design and behavior, but at the subcity level. Tn practice, social use values often are presented to the planner in the form of © arguments against urban change and in support ofthe status quo. But social use values also can be enhanced through well-managed growth and change. Urban Form Lynch (1981) has proposed a theory of “good” city form, relat- ing social use values to change and stability in urban physical structure. Accord- ing to Lynch (118-19), good urban form has a number of dimensions that ean be expressed in varying degrees. 1. Vitality is support provided by the city’ urban structure for human functions, biological requirements, and capabilities. 2. Sense is clarity of residents’ perception of the city as a structure in time and space and the connection between the urban structure and residents’ values 3, Fitis the match between the citys spaces, channels, and equipment and the activities of its people. 4, Access isthe ability to reach persons, activities, resources, services, informa- tion, or plices within the urban form. 5, Control is the control by users of use, access, and change of spaces and ac- tivities within the city. 6. Efficiency is the relative cost of creating and maintaining the settlement for various levels of vitality, sense, fit, access, and control. 7. Justice is tho balance of the distribution of environmental benefits and costs ‘among the city’ people. Lynch's view of the good city is one that encourages change in the form of con- tinuous development of individusls or small groups and their culture: a process of becomiag more complex, more richly connected, more competent, a {quiringand realizing new powers—intellectual, emotions, social, andl physical... a good settlement s also an open one: accessible, decentralized, diverse, adaptable, and tolerant to experiment. This emphasis on dynamic openness s distinct from the insis- tence of environmentalists (and most utopians) on recurrence and stability. The blue ribbon goes to development, as long as it keeps within the constraints of continuity in44 Part 1: Conceptual Framework Filey ntl sP8ee.Sinco an unstable cology risks disaster as wells enrichment, flex- biltyis important, ad also the ability to learn and adapt rapidly (116-17) A narrower view of desirable urban form seeks to achieve compact urbanized ‘The basic argument in favor of compact development {iii Systems A sccond source of social use concepts is provided by F St Iie Chapin, Jr's work with “human activity systems,” the patterned ways me which houscholds firms, and institutions use urban azeas (Chapin and Kaiser 1079) thik firaws on time budget studies, which construct descriptions of the duratieg an} location of such household activities as childcare or socializing and explore mov- ing plans end location preferences. It also draws on analyses ofthe catvont sod preferred activity pattems and site qualities of firms and institutions, Activity ys- toms analyses are designed to provide the planner with a mothod of, monitoring siuuwy and space choice patterns as an input into land use plans, projections, and forecast models, Jn terms of Lynch’ utban form performance dimensions, activity systems anal rset Would be most concermed with theft between the physical parts of the city and the activities ofits users. Chapin proposes a qualitative, riero perspective that searches for archetypal households, firms, and institutions and rekstes thelr seth ities and spatial choices to locational requirements for land plans, Underlying his \workis he notion that planners should monitor social change in order to plan cities more responsive to residents’ needs, Given the dramatic changes in household composition, female Participation in the work force, and location of offices during the past decade, activity systems {pformation would be invaloable, Unfortunately, the periodie surveys and nvens in views as the second clement of metropolitan interaction, along with activities) for subareas ealleg transporta- ‘on analysis zones (TAZs). Transportation planners aso allocate projected resent, lei- urbanized velopment te, its pro- Lintenance ‘ask Force sect dovel- areas that air pollu- awedensi- arban liv- ipe older, 1 Sta- inwhich 79). This tion and ore mov. rent and ity sys- nitoring ons, and nsanal- the city ive that ‘ractiv- ‘inghis neities tion in stems inven- ffices, vever, vation ment >ortae resi Concepts of Land Use Change Management 45, tial and employment growth to TAZs, ‘These transportation surveys provide a jseful source of urban behavioral and planning information and could be expanded ‘include even more activity questions. Neighborhoods The social neighborhood is a third source of social use con- ‘cepts. In a review of the theoretical underpinnings of neighborhood planning, Rohe and Gates (1985, 51-52) observe: “The social functions of neighborhoods ‘include the development of significant primary social relationships; the sociliza- tion of children and the development of informal social control; the provision of personal support networks; and the facilitation of social integration into the larg- cer society.” They note that, in addition to other benofits, decentralized neighbor- hood planning also can be more responsive to local needs, increase citizen par- © ticipation, result in more physical improvement projects, widen the scope of © problems addressed and improve public services, and result in more social inter- action and a stronger sense of community Physical planners have used the neighborhood as an organizing device, Organic models view the physical pattern of the city as comprised of a number of neigh- bothood “cells,” each with their own houses, schools, shops, and recreation areas (Lynch 1981, 400-402). In this view, each neighborhood is a small bounded area where the residents are in face-to-face contact and on intimate terms, creating a sense of community. Clarence Peny proposed that neighborhood units be focused around elementary schools in the frst regional plan of New York, an idea followed inmany other plans, especially for such new towns as Columbia, Maryland (Hlop- penfeld 1967). Survey respondonts in cities typically can define their social neigh- borhoods. However, social neighborhoods are normally limited to twenty or thir- tyhouseholds rather than the larger units that planners define as elementary school catchment areas. Too, since busing has been used for school integration, elemen- tary school districts no longer necessarily fit the space adjacent to school build- ings. Meanwhile, as questions have arisen about the validity of the social function of the neighborhood unit, growth has also occurred in the political function of the neighborhood as an organizing force for lobbying against projects that change its predominant character (Babcock and Siemon 1985). Logan and Molotch (1987, 99) put the neighborhood into the contest of the larger city value system: “The city isa setting for the achievement of both exchange values and use values; and the nefghborhood is the meeting place of the two forces, where each resident faces the challenge of making a life on areal estate commod- ity.” They see the creation and defense of the use values of neighborhoods as the central urban issue for residents and identify six major categories of neighborhood use values. 1. The daily round involves the neighborhood as the setting for routine activ- ties centered on the residence. 2. Informal support networks are the neighborhood-based people and organiza- tions who provide life-sustaining products and services, especialy for the poor.46 Part 1: Conceptual Framowork 5 Seeurity and trast result from membership ina neighborhood social space jiitisseen as orderly, predictable, and protective, ‘especially for women with families, 4, Identity for residents and others results from neighborhood social and spa- tal demareations, encouraging compotition among neighborhoods for pub- lic fciities that will raise their social status 5. Agglomeration benefits consist of the package of overlapping uso values (such identity and security that neighborhood residents share, 6. Ethnicity, when it occurs, summarizes the overlapping benefits ofneighbor hood values Similar threats are posed by bankers property managers, and devel. Spars who raise rents, renovate, convert, sll propery, or sce land for new projects, “Whether among rich or poor neighborhoods in dhe contral city or the urban fringe, neighborhood futures are determined by the ways in which entre- Preneurial pressures from outside intersect with interval mate) stakes and sen- ).social space vomen with ial and spa- -ds for pub- alues (such neighbor: and sootal social net- 5 to neigh- anetioning aborhoods ovide new neighbor- and devel- dfornew sity or the ich entre- sand sen- ‘ound that at people ments to he emer- gulation’s singeclass ) assert a ing force to differ. current ‘orwom- of work- eswom- jes. One ald is to levelop- centers sscloser Concepts of Land Use Change Management 47 ‘Land planners, who are centrally concerned with reorganizing urban space to provide for changing urban needs, face continual conflicts with those who want ‘fo maintain the status quo because of existing social use values. Neighborhood Janning has been one response although it has encountered both conceptual and ‘practical difficulties. Its clear, however, that some type of planning units small- “ex than the city, whether neighborhoods, planning districts, or groups of TAZs, aro neoded to deal with place-oriented social use values, Social use values also are ‘embodied in the more holistie concept of quality of life, a perceptual measure of individual rankings of various urban functions and elements (Myers 1989). Both * neighborhood planning and quality of life surveys can inform the land planning [process concerning social use values. Market Values Commodity values of land drive the business side of urbanization, providing Incentives to developers and financiers as well as measures of locational advan- tage for firms and organizations. In this view, land should be put to its “highest and best use” as determined by the operations of the market. However, unfettered ‘market competition fails to meet all the needs of desirable communities. ‘At the extremes, Jand use planners find two opposing sets of ideas about the re- © lationship of planning and the market. One view is that the market is an effective ‘mechanism for organizing transactions, which should only be fine-tuned by govern- ‘ment regulation and planning to correct minor disfoifions. This view focuses on correcting market failure. The other view holds that public intervention should substitute for market processes in order to redistribute wealth and opportunitios. In between is the new and still somewhat uneasy merger of the market and gov- ‘emment in public-private partnerships, As usual, land use planning practice oper- ates in a terrain that is broad and responsive to changing urban conditions. Correcting Market allure Lee (1981, 150) states that “most land use outcomes are determined by private markets, indirectly influenced by government policies and related private sector actions. . .. The initiative lies primarily with the private sector. Land use decisions can be thought of as the output of land markets, which take as inputs various factors of supply, demand, and public policies.” He asserts that the objective of land use planning should be to foster those aspects of pri- vate market processes that work well and to compensate for market failures. These friluves include negative externalities that have adverse side-effects for those who do not benefit. Thus the market price does not reflect the full costs; for example, an apartment project can ereate additional trafite impact, However, Lee warns that the cost of government programs to correct failures may exceed the benefits of greater efficiency and equity. ‘Loc’ view that growth controls may be inefficient in the market sense is gen- erally supported by economists (for a review of the literature, see Fischel 1989). For example, Dowall (1984) concludes that land use controls in some places have48 Part 1: Conceptual Framework supply of land thzough purchase or imposition o grouth limits, Owners of dovelopable property in realestate markets whens ied ji viewed as being in tight supply have held their parcels off the market una prices fave been bid to maximum, In order to provide more aifordable housing Lovo Redistributing Wealth and Power Logan and Molotch (1987, 50) argue that ithe ety Asa growth machine, one that can increase aggregate rents and trap re- lated wealth for those in the right position to benefit” They are skeptical about the contribution of market-oriented urban growth to social values, focusing on the Way that elites influence local political decision-making to further theft profits through supposedly “value-free” economie growth Supporting this economie Browth perspective they see a coalition of business, poiteans, the merle le Pendent utility agencies, organized labor, comporate officals, and cultueal penne tions, The coalition clatins that growth strengthens the local tax base, erento jobs, Drovides resources to solve social problems, meets housing needs sed allan rk markt to serve public tastes in housing, neighborhoods, and conmordal doc Gpment: However, critics believe that the growth cvalttion’s power needs to bo counterbalanced with publie programs to redistribute wealth and enere equity inland use decision-making. Public-Private Partnerships _Atone time, public planning was defined solely 8 a governmental function that was separate from the macket, During recent on large projects, such as downtown redevelopment project like San Diego's Horton Plaza and Now York’s Battery Park City, these new partnerships have changed the assumptions about the legitimate role of planning and have led toa Tw ora of public and private “deal making” According to Frieden and Sagalyn (1989, 315-16); Deal making for downtown projects was inline with the 1070s idea that financial in- centives could get private interests to sorve public purposes, This approach led both® that has the cost of igh down- lucing the sor other hhere land alil prices Dowall rarket ef- itructure, sent, and ‘gue that Trrap re- sal about gon the ir profits conomic ia, inde- linstitu. tes jobs, lows the Udevel- dstobe e equity dsolely recent incom reusing Diego's 0s have edtoa iagalyn in. both, vate ge ves >be Concepts of Land Use Change Management 49 Ecological Values Ecological values stem from various conceptions of the role of the natural en- | vironment in human affairs, Not all ecological values stem from the same root. Atleast three conceptions can be identified (Ortolano 1984, 5-18). 1. Bffcient use of natural resources, formulated by Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service, as the basis for scientific forest management and exemplified in the resource economist’ utilitarian economic efficiency objective, 2, Maintaining integrity of natural systems, advocated by ecologists who argue for harmony between the actions of people and nature's processes to avoid irreversible damage to ecological functions that support human life, 3, Pure preservation of nature, advocated by philosophers who believe that wil- deress is a source of spiritual and esthetic renewal to be preserved for its own sake and that plants and animals have an ethical right to exist. Environmentalist’ arguments may contain elements ofall three conceptions. However, itis possible to link efficient use values to views of the environment as anasset; natural systems functional integrity values to carrying capacity, land suit- ability, and sustainable development approaches; and preservation values to en- dangered species and natural proserve approaches. ‘There is a tendeney to politicize the environment as a means of accomplishing, such other ends as stopping a project or slowing urban growth. Where environ- mental values are in conflict with market or social use values and scientific evi- dence is ambiguous, then conflicting testimony on the predicted impacts may be offered. For example, experts differed over the potential health effects on an adjacent neighbothood of a new incinerator proposed for the Brooklyn Navy Yard (Klapp 1989). But under any of the three conceptions, environmental values need not be viewed as a(gtical to land use planning, Environmental Assets Traditional approaches to environmental values have Tinked them to the environment as an economic asset in which pollution is defined 25a “rek{dual,” manageable leftover from production and consumption. The oval- uation of environmental impacts, in which benefit-cost analysis is used as a basis for choice among alternatives, is another economic approach to valuing the envi- ronment (Ortolano 1984). A third approach stresses the protective features of the environment in protecting people and property from natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes (Pilkey et al. 1980). [nal three approaches, environmental assets are to be efficiently managed for human benefit through plans, manage- ment progeams, regulations, and project evaluations. Environmental integrity Land planners have incorporated environmental in- tegrity values into their plans through the use of concepts that link characteris tics of and areas with environmental processes and hurnan uses. Three such con-50 Part 1: Conceptual Framework cepts aro. Pring capacity, a measure of “expeity land suitability, a measure of “desirability” for a particular use; and sustaifdble development, a measure of “feasibility” for balancing environmental, economic, and social functions. Ganying capacity analysis describes the amount of development an atea can accommodate without undergoing irteversible ecological change or damage due to some threshold limits to growth. Limits may be environmental (air and water quality, ecosystem stability, soil erosion), physical (infrastructure capacity), or psychological (e.g., perceptions of crowding or esthetics). As Clark (1981, 81) notes, the natural carrying capacity of an ecological system is variable not fixed, and “the analysis of earrying capacity is a method for testing the effects of pol es, not for making them.” He states that among the proper tasks of natural on- vironmental carrying capacity analysis are allocation of predetermined amounts of growth, determination of ecological impacts from human actions, identification ofexitical areas, prediction of effects of alternatives, restoration of ecosystems and renewable resources, specification of performance standards for development, and determination of consequences of various lovels of resource utilization." Carry capacity analysis inks environmental values and social use values by identify. ing threshold of use limits that respect the capability of land and ecology. Land suitability analysis describes the uses to which a particular land parcel is inherently suited due to such characteristics of tho parcel as its soils, slope, vegeta. tion, and hydrology. Applications of land suitability analysis are associated with the work of McFlarg (1968), who used map overlays to define areas best sulted for pare ticular land uses based on constraining 2s well as accommodating factors. A simple Jand suitability analysis for potential industrial use might include parcels with Rat to moderate slopes, soils with good bearing eapacity, nonthreatened habitats, and few wetland axess, In practice, most areas wil be suitable for more than one type cof use, requiring the addition of such other factors.as infrastructure availability and compatibility with adjacent parcels in order to assign desired land uses. Sustainable development isa more recent concept linking environmental, eco- nomic, and social use values. The goal is to identify the level of development that can be sustained without critical environmental damage, while meeting econom- icand social needs of present and fature generations (Breheny 1999) Taking ca: pebility and suitably analysis a step farther, sustainable development analysis recognizes not only that the environment produces valuable resources and that environmental stress isa product of human use but also that environmental pres- ervation has costs, An underlying premise is that a certain level of economic de. Felopment is necessary in ordor to pay for sustaining ecological diversity and sta. bility. Without adequate economic development, natural resources may be overexploited and destroyed, asin eases of deforestation in developing countries where people hed no alternative source of livelihood, Another premise is that fistainablity depends on reducing consumption of materials and energy. Arising from work at the United Nations (1993), the concept has potential for applica- tion in developed as well as developing areas where environmental resourecs sus,Concepts of Land Use Change Management 51 social systems and economies, as in agricultural, silvacultural, and mericul- ‘ural areas dependent on renewable resources and in tourist and recreation areas ghere the environment i the attraction (Ascher and Healy 1980), Sustainable development analysis looks at the feesbilty of environmental managemont strat {gad lghtof related economic and social needs rather than insolation, ree Ges the need to conserve natural (ecological) capital and to develop buman ‘capital through wise use of economic eapital. ‘For example, the 1992 New Zealand = Feurce Management Act requires local planning to follow sustainable devel- ‘opment principles (Monty and Dixon 1993; Berke 1994), | prasorvation of Nature One strong st of environmental values insists on the preservation of nature as a basic purpose. This view appears in legislation to pre- _ Tite endangered specos of plants and animals in order to maintain species di- versity and in programs to preserve wetlands ‘and rain forests. It defends its post- ton gn the grounds that human activities aro reducing diversity and that intergenezetionel equity demands that future gonerations not be deprived of the cae rryol of diversity that present gonorations enjoy as well as on the grounds Seat nature has inherent value to be preserved for its own sake, It also appears ia the arguments of animal ights activists and landscape preservationist. Land use tions to support presorvaton values include designation of protected nature eserves; maintenance of endangered species habitats; protection of water sup- wry watersheds and aquifers; and reduced denstios in buffer areas adjacont to aks, waterways, viewsheds, and natural open spaces. hinners confront the tension between development and eonservation as they do the tension between development and social use—ith an offort to strike a orking balance. If all environmental impacts were stopped, then most humat vette would have to stop as well Yet to ignore environmental impacts iso risk hasan health and safety as well as economic and esthetic contributions of natu- i features. What is needed is a theory of practice brond enough to incorporate the necessary elements yet effective in achieving a balance. Integrating Land Use Values agement asa local government responsi- Effectiveness in land use change man ‘exchange, and ecological views of land bility depends upon integrating the use, iy epenced system, Our proposed systom is made up of two parts (1) a land tio change management model that incorporates structural concems of hana cology and political economy theories through land use planning concepts, and {2)a planning discourse model that incorporates process concoms of gee theo- ry through participation and dispute resolution concepts. It recognizes not only Roontass ef the major stakeholders in the land use game, but also the values of the planner as both a techineal expert and a player.52 Part 1: Conceptual Framework ‘A Model of Land Use Change Management ‘To use a simple structural analogy, \ge managernent can be visu ized asthe seat or main integrating frames of a stool whose three legs are social use, market, and ecological values, Ruther joining the legs isthe overarching Concept of sustainable development (Figure 2-9) tho stool to stand, every part Jand use chan, ty patterns, cept planning. If mark. the primary coordinating guiding principle in the band Use Change Management Socal Ecotgeal ves Vato } | | {‘Concepts of Land Uso Change Management 63 “= Land use change management as the integrating structure also leads the so- “al learning process necessary for the community to understand the impacts, ‘opportunities, and pitfalls of change. Without the sense of eontinuity that plan= ring provides and that connects the past, present, and future, the community is ‘unable to connect events into trends and to interpret patterns of chango. Collecting and analyzing information are central to this effort, as aro making and implement- ing advanee plans. Finally, the land use change management process operates in the arena where consensus is hammered out over the direction and meaning of change and desir- able community response. This consensus-building process is as critical as tech- nical analysis and design solutions. The next section proposes a model of cormmu- nity conscnsus-building organized around discourse over planning issues. ‘A Model of Planning Discourse Every land planner depends on a working community consensus over desired ‘ends and means in order to achieve action in line with plan proposals. The cliché about plans that gather dust on the shelf, unconsulted by public or private deci- sion-makers, stems from the days in which planning was viewed as an indepen- dent, autocratic, and self-fulfilling exercise. Contemporary planners realize that gaining community support, understanding, and “ownership” of plans through a broad-based consensus formation effort is a necessary but not sufficient condli- tion of suecessfsl implementation. It must be followed by systematic programs toensure that adopted plans are used in operational decisions. The process must also continue over time, building new consensus to deal with changed conditions and needs. ‘Toachiove consensus, the land planner engages in a community diseourse with market-oriented developers, social use interests, and government officials, re larly exchanging information, involvement, influence, and proposals in order to find solutions to development problems and needs (Godschalk and Stiftel 1981). ‘This planning discourse model is a central feature of the land use game, with el- ements of public education, baigaining, persuasion, and reciprocal trades, in ad- dition to its technical and analytical features (Figure 2-3). Besides doing techni- cal planning work, the land plannor maintains and participates in this discourse process which debates proposals for land use change, considering land as a com- ‘mumnity resource to be allocated in accordance with consensus values during the city building process. For the land planner, the basic ends of planning discourse are plans, policies, and community development actions that balance the three major values—social, mar- ket, and environmental, Other players in the land use game may see the ends and means more navrowly. Enlivening the discourse aro the contrasting perspectives of those who view land primarily as a homeplace or neighborhood for living and work- ing, as a commodity to be exchanged for profit on the real estate market, or as an irreplaceable environmental resource to be conserved in its natural stat.54 Part 1: Conceptual Framework GOVERNMENT on Ny, ” Oy g ‘y g % FS % \, é 8 g LAND USE 2 z PLANS AND = g Decisions 2 ISON 5 a & % % % “0, PLANNERS Figure 2-8, Planning Discourse Mode: Exchange among Land Use Game Players Itis planning discourse that humanizes the rational planning model and trans- formsit into a community learning and consensus-building process. Discourse will pass through varying levels of intensity over time as major planning and eomm- nity development decisions rise tothe top ofthe community egenda, Because plan- taking is a cyclical process, planning discourse can be anticipated to peak in reg- ular five-to sixyear periods. However, external events may force a less predictable cycle, For example, if a community faces a significant loss due to a military base closing or a natural disaster, then discourso will be initiated to formulate a strate- gic response. Planning discourse not only keeps the planner and other players abreast of current issues and proposals, but it also serves as a forwarc-looking process. By aggregating the knowledge of stakeholders about potential changes in their vari- us realms, the diseourse process enables the community to forocast likely future scenarios and explore alternative land use and other planning strategies. Recognizing the Planner’s Values Like the other players in the land use game, planners also bring values to the table. These are typically a mix of personal and professional valuos that embody the reasons why the person chose to become a planner and what the planning peer ‘group expects its members to strive for." Reflective planners, who are aware of the values that underlie their recommendations and analyses, make them explic- it parts of their practice (Schon 1983). The integration of planning values withvers and trans- vourse will eommu- ‘use plane vak noes redictable itary base eastrate- abreast of ‘ocess. By their vant ely future 8 resto the tembody ning peer aware of mexplic- Tues with Concepts of Land Use Change Management 55 practice methods is expressed through planning ethics, adding a moral dimension 4o professional activity (Beatley 1984). = Planners’ concepts of practice stress the priorities of various ends and means. For example, as general ends, most planners strive for cities that are efficient, ‘equitable, and esthetically pleasing, but when dealing with a particular proposal ‘one goal may take on a higher priority. At the level of general means, most plan- ners strive to ensure that all aflected parties have opportunities to partiefpate in decisions and that results are capable of effective implementation. Again, how- ‘ever, the means may be influenced at the stage of dealing with a particular pro- oss by such other factors as power imbalances or deadlines. In other words, prac tice values often are necessarily conditional and situational rather than general. ‘Allplans rest on values.'The best plans attempt to make those values explicit and subject them to public discussion, The difficulty is that once the values go beyond such abstract statements of the public intorest as furthering public health, safety, convenience, efficiency, and the like, they are subject to intense disagreement. One response has been to construct alternative plans that accomplish differ- ent blends of values and to let the public and decision-makers choose the desired alternative, For example, the 1990 Volusia County, Florida, Coastal Management Plan considered a series of alternative land use schemes ranging from a continu- ation of past development practices—which was found unacceptable from an ‘environmental and urban service perspectivo—to a prohibition on development outside the urbanized area—which was found unacceptable politically and eco- nomically. The compromise solution permitted the expansion of the urban area, but only in limited areas adjacent tothe coastal cities where natural resource losses could be adequately mitigated (Sedway Cooke Associates 1980), In that ease, the practical factors of the situation tempered the sharply defined abstract values of the alternative plans. ’As with other parts of land planning, we return to the importance of balance inthe planner’s value schema, The planner is only one player in the land use geme. Despite tho knowledge and expertise ofthe planner, the other players’ values and Knowledge must also be recognized. The great mistakes of planning often have stemmed from a professional arrogance that did not recognize competing views (Hall 1982). Our approach to land use change management takes a more open and balanced direction. NoTES 1. See, forexample, the chapters in Godschalk (1974) and Morley and Shachar (1986). 2, The contemporary literature of planning includes several works oriented toward the notion of change management. See Yaro etal (1989) and MeClendon and Quay (1988) 3, Giuliano (1989) has critiqued traditional economic-behavioral theories of urban change that use economic prineiples of uility and profit maximization to explain and use and transportation relationships. She points out that changing conditions, such as employ- ment decentralization, the increase in two-worker households, and improvements in ac-86 Part 1: Conceptual Framework development for distressed ares, project fnance, affordable housing, andthe waco Puters and geographic information systems to help solve problems ‘4. Lynch (1981, ch, 2) identifies three types of theories: (1) decision theories, which sereebore fo our planning process theories; (2) factional theories, which are empiticl taplanations of urban development; and (8) normative theories, which comest Levee values and settlement form, 5. Strategie planning advocates assert thatthe rational model is too inclusive and cum- bersome to be effective, that it fails to consider extemal conditions, and that it does not Friae teat theories can be both descriptive and normative, Most politcal economy theories have a normative component allied with a descriptive component, 7. Rutdel (1888) calls these three pattoms of land use control: (1) bilateral relational control in rural areas (2) ile-based control in rural-urban fringe arcas, and (3) tleter! telational control for urban areas, Under bilateral control, land owners deal dines ly with, ‘each other. Under rule-based control, loca elected officials decide on land use ‘changes. Under trilateral relational control, a third-party decision-mekor i involved in the fare af a judge or a mediator. 8. Howover, see de Neufile (1981, 44-46) onthe parochial and protectionist tendon cies of making docisons on a neighborhood seale nd on the unequal power of rich anal poor noighborhoods, 2. See Webber's essays on “communty without propinguity” (1965) and the“nonplaco urban ean’ (1964), which attack the idea that urban social networks ar the result of or confined to, physical neighborhoods. 10. Although the initiative ofthe private sector is critical, the public sector can also play various growth-guiding eards in the form of infrastructure policies and decors Espresiway and interchange locations, trunk ewvers, large water mains, school locations, ‘and the like heavily inftuence private-sector development decisions, AL. Clark elioves that policymakers, not technical experts, should resolve questions of population limits, density of structures, type and mix of uses, optimal rate ‘of develop. ‘ment and optimal rate of return on investment, He sees carrying capacity analysis as ro adjunct to, nota substitute for, political processes, 12, Lynch (1981, 386-67) derived the following list of planners’ values about setle ‘ment form from his review ofthe literature:Concepts of Land Use Change Management 57 pcan 1. Enjoy the ety for its urbanity—diversity, surprises, picturesqueness, and high in- Sees teraction levels. ban te £2, Theeity should express and reinforce society and the nature ofthe world, includ- Ca i ing symbolism, cultural meanings, history, and traditional form, das save BS 3. Order, clarity, and expression of function are the principal criterla rpvanned 4, Gity design isthe efficient provision and maintenance of facilities and services, for mecrawa x ‘example, good engineeri 7 5, Thecity sa managed ongoing system whose key elements are the market, institn- ae aaa “tions, communications, and the decision process—the view from above. mata 6. The principal values are local control, pluralism, advocacy, behavior settings, and payee the sinall social group—the view from below. a sul 7. The environment is to be valued by its individual experience, for its openness, leg- ar Abily, meaning, educativeness, and sensory pleasure. Fabia iat 8, The city is a means for prof or power through competition, appropriation, and ex- nena ploitation and division of resources. fal model E. 9, The environment is a given, to be survived ia and observed. mpetence vodel does = REFERENCES eee | Appleyard, Donald. 1981. Place and nonplace: The now search for roots. In The land use 30) : policy debate in the United States, ed. Judith de Neuville. New York: Plenum Press. eee j ‘Ascher, William, and Robert G. Healy, 1990, Natural resource policymaking in develop- ¥ : ing countries: Environment, economic growth, and income distribution. Dutharm: Duke Heat University Press. ileal Audirac, Ivonne, Anne H, Shermyen, and Mare T. Smith, 1990, Ideal urban form and sely with E visions of the good life, Journal of the American Planning Association 36(4): 470-82. changes. © Babeock, Richard, and Charles Siemon. 1985. The zoning game revisited, Boston: Oelge- eieae schlager, Gunn and Hain, Beatley, Timothy. 1984, Applying moral principles to growth management; Journal ofthe fie ‘American Planning Association 50(4): 459-69. ich and Borke, Philip 1994. Evaluating environmental plan quality: The ease of planning for sus- tainable development in New Zealand, Journal of Environmental Planning and Man- ae ‘agement. In press ueetor BE _—2227, 3. aan ohn D.Kaarda, 197, Contemporary urban ecology. New York: A e Macmnillian, puree Braybrooke, David, and Charles Lindblom, 1963. strategy of decision. New York: Free x Press of Glencoe. eae © Brehony, M. J, ed 1992. Sustainable development and urban form, London: Pion. "| Bryson, John. 1988, Strategie planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Fran lee ‘cisco: Jossey-Bass. i levelop- Bryson, John, and Robert Einsweller, eds, 1988, Strateglo planning: Threats and oppor- soesee : ‘tunities for planners. Chicago: APA Press. q Chapin, F Stuart, Je, and Edward J. Kaiser. 1979, Urban land.use planning, 3d ed. Urbs- ait ‘na: University of Illinois Press, Clark, John. 1981, The search for natural limits to growth. {n The land use policy debate | 3 in the United States, ed, Judith de Neufville, New York: Plenum Press.58 Part 1: Conceptual Framework Clavel, Pierre. 1986. The progressive city: Planning and Participation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, de Noutille, Judith, ed, 1981. The landuse policy debate in the United States, New York: Plenum Press. Land Institute, Florida Govemors Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns, 1989, Final report Tallahassee, Nrieden, Barnard, and Lynne Sagelyn, 1989. Downtown, Ine: How Anrerieg builds cities, Cambridge: MIT Press. Friedinann, John. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge o action, Prince~ ton: Princeton University Press, ixano, Coneviev, 1989. New dreetions for understanding transportation and land use Environment and Planning 21: 145-89, Godschall; David R. ed. 1974. Panning in Amertea: Learning fom turbulenee. Wesh- ington, D.C: American Institute of Planners, Godlschalk, David R, and Bruce Stiftl. 1981. Making waves: Public participation in state iter planning, Journal of Applied Behaviortal Science 17(4). 50% 614. Hall Peter 1962. Great planning leases. Berkley: University of California Press, eon The turbulent cighth decade: Challenges to American city planning. Jour- nal of the American Planning Association 55(3): 275.89. Harvey, David. 1981. The urban process under capitalism A fiamework for ‘analysis. In Yrhanteation and urban planning n capitalist society, ed. M. Deas and A Seat, sia York: Methuen, Hawley Amos 1950, Human ecology: A theory of community structure, Now York: Ronald Press. Heyden, Delores. 1960, What would a non-sexi city look lke? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture an? Soctety 5(3) Spring Supplement: $170-87, Holling, .S, and M. A. Goldberg. 1971. Keology and planning Journal of the American Institute of Planners 317(4): 92130, Hoppenfold, Morton, 1967. A sketch ofthe planning-bullding process for Columbia, Maryland. Journal of the American Instuute of Planners 33(8)* 398,400, Janes, Judith, 1862. Group processes andthe social construction of growth ‘management: abide, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal ofthe American Planning Assotaeg 584): 440-53, Kaiser, Edward ., and Shicley ¥, Weiss, 1970, Public policy end the residential develop. ment process Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36(1). 30.37, Klapp, Meri, 1889, Bargaining with uncertainty: The Brooklyn Navy Yard incinerator dispute, Journal of Planning Education and Research 8(3) 187.66. fee, Doulas, B,J. 1981. Land use planning as response to market failor, In Tho land use policy debate n the United States, ed. Judith do Neufille. New York, Penang Pee Logan, John, and Harvey Molotch. 1987, Urban fortunes: The, political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press,“unswick: ‘ew York: tthe San viaPress research agenda, 2 Urban ahassee, Asclties. Prince- and use, Wash- instate ess Jour. lysis. In tt Now Ronald using, ty5(3) vertecan umbia, sient: 58(4): wvelop- erator eland Press. place. Concepts of Land Use Change Management 59 "Jynch, Kevin, 1081. A theory of good city form. Cambridge: MIT Press. “Markusen, Ann, 1980. City spatial structure, women’s household work, and national ur- ‘ban policy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5(8): 20-41 ‘MeClendon, Bruce, and Ray Quay. 1988. Mastering change. Chieago: APA Planners Press. ‘Moffarg, Ian. 1969. Dasign with nature. Gartlen City: Doubleday. “Michael, Donald. 1975. On learning to plan—and planning to learn, San Francisco: Jos- sey Bass = Monty, BE, and J. E, Dison, 1983. From law to practice: BIA in Now Zealand. Envt- ‘ronmental Impact Assessment Review 13(2): 89-108. 5 Morley, David. 1986. Approaches to planning in turbulent environments. In Planning in turbulence, ed. David Morley and Arle Shachar, Jerusalem. "The Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Myors, Dowell, 1989, The ecology of “quality of life” and urban growth. In Understand “ing growth management; Critica issues anda research agenda, ed, David Brower, David Godechalk, and Douglas Porter. Washington, D.C: Urban Land Institute. Nelson, Arthur. 1988, An empirical note on how regional utban containment policy influ- ‘ences an interaction between greenbelt and oxurban land markets. Journal of the ‘American Planning Association 54(2): 178-84 New Jorsey State Planning Commission. 1991. Communities of place: The interim state development and redevelopment plan for the state of New Jersey. Trenton. Ortolano, Leonard, 1984. Environmental planning and decision making. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Perin, Constance. 1977. Bverything in its place, Princeton: Princeton University Pres Perloif, Harvey 8. 1974. The evolution of planning education. In Planning in America: ‘Learning from turbulence, ed. David R. Godschalk, Washington, D.C.: American In stitute of Planners. Pilkoy, Orrin H, St, et al. 1980. Coastal design: A guide for builders, planners, and home ‘owners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, Rohe, William, and Lauren Gates. 1985. Planning with neighborhoods. Chapel Hill: University of Noxth Carolina Press. Rosenau, James. 1990. Turbulence in world politics: A theory of change and continuity. ‘Princeton: Prineeton University Press. Rudel, Thomas K. 1989. Situattons and strategies in Amertean land-use planning, Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Schon, Donald. 1971. Beyond the stable state, New York: Random House. WO 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Sedvway Cooke Associates. 1989, Volusia County coastal management element. San Fran- ‘cisco: Sedwway Cooke Associates. Spain, Daphne. 1992. Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press Susskind, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual ‘approaches to resolving publie disputes. New Yorke Basic Books. United Nations. 1993, The global partnership for environment and development: A gulde to Agenda 21. New York: The author (post Rio edition). Van der Ryn, Sim, and Peter Calthorpe. 1986, Sustainable communities. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Webber, Melvin 1963. Order in diversity: Community without propinguity In Cities and60 Part 1: Conceptual Framework pace: The future use of urban land, ed. Loudon Wingo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press pancerpet. ‘The urban place andthe nonplace urban yal, In Explorations into ur- ban structure, ed. Melvin Webber etal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Proc, Yaro, Robert, ot al. 1989,