This article examines the roots and the evolution of tourism and town planning theory and practice. It discusses how both fields have interacted with each other, and provides some clues about the way in which tourism and town planning theory and practice are likely to evolve in the future. It is argued that tourism planning theory is still looking for its own identity and ways of evolving in the future. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An emerging tourism planning paradigm? A comparative analysis between town and tourism planning

This article presents some insights into making participatory processes meaningful. It argues that these processes need to expressly empower communities through grassroots organizing, coalition building, and democratic deliberation. Community benefits agreements are new models of this power process. These are private agreements between community coalitions and developers. Case studies of two large projects in California, the Los Angeles International Airport expansion in Los Angeles and the Ballpark Village in San Diego, are presented. These studies demonstrate certain unique features that make participation an exercise in the redistribution of power.

Empowering Communities through Deliberation The Model of Community Benefits Agreements

Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation

The planning system escaped fundamental reorganisation in the 1980s. Its agendas and emphases were shifted, and its procedures modified. Planning functions in a few areas (Urban Development Corporations) were taken out of local authority control, and the regulatory regime was relaxed in others (via Enterprise and Simplified Planning Zones) . Otherwise the system remained intact . Its objective continued to be to regulate the use and development of land through a system of advisory development plans and regulatory decisions on development applications, governed by administrative discretion rather than legal rule. The power to determine the parameters of that discretion continued to be concentrated in central government and the courts . One reason for this continuity is the peculiar flexibility of the British planning system. Its legislation defines procedures to govern local decision-making, with little specification of policy content . Some interpret the system as a procedural device to be `filled' with whatever content politicians, officials and pressure groups consider important at a particular time . This content has varied over the years . In the early post-war period, a central objective was to organise development and redevelopment activity undertaken primarily by the public sector. By the 1970s, restraining development pressures and promoting environmental quality were key objectives . McAuslan (1980), however, argues that its discretionary form allows an administrative-professional conception to dominate the definition of the `public interest' in land-use regulation and the management of environmental change. Brindley et al. (1989) describe the system in the 1980s as exploring alternative directions . In some places, a strategic planbased approach was being taken, in others the public sector led a process of urban regeneration . Elsewhere, the system was used merely to facilitate market-led development. They predicted that the dominant directions, because most coincident with Thatcherism, were represented in the London Docklands, and in attempts at privatesector-led regeneration of rundown council estates. Both were examples of projectbased market-led initiatives, supported with government subsidy . But by 1990, the impetus had moved away from such models, with the property-development sector in deep recession and questions being raised about the justification for the ongoing scale of subsidy in Docklands if the intention was for the market to bear the costs and risks as well as reap the direct benefits of development activity . Brindley et al. (1989) describe the planning system as a flexible mechanism for mediating conflicting interests in land within which different interests come to dominate at different periods. The present author took a similar view in an analysis of

The Reorganisation of State and Market in Planning

Urban renewal is increasingly identified within Australian metropolitan planning strategies as central in accommodating housing growth. However, there is little understanding of those developers who are responsible for providing new dwellings in middle- and outer-ring urban locations. Using Sydney as an example, this article explores the types of developers operating in these locations, the types of developments they are developing and their tendency to interact with local councils in an effort to gain development approval. In reviewing the operation of developers undertaking urban renewal, it is apparent that informal associations are critical in facilitating development in middle- and outer-ring urban locations.

Developer Typologies in Urban Renewal in Sydney: Recognising the Role of Informal Associations between Developers and Local Government

Part One The Issues. Development impacts, the community interest and the planning system. From betterment to development obligations. Development impacts and the developer. The law and the legal debate. Part Two The Practice. Development obligations in contemporary planning practice. The purpose and rationales for agreements. The negotiation and management of obligations. Implications. Regulation through negotiation: a systematic approach. Appendix 1.The study approach. Appendix 2 Index of legal cases. References. Index.

Negotiating Development: Rationales and practice for development obligationsand planning gain

Summary This paper argues for a strategic approach to the negotiation of contributions from developers in the context of planning regulation. It reviews why such contributions have become more important in recent years and examines the alternative rationales which can be used to justify such practices. It then summarizes attempts to provide policy guidance for these negotiations and summarizes the findings of recent research on the scale and content of the practice. The paper concludes by making the case for an impact‐oriented approach to determining and justifying such contributions in preference to a ‘planning gain’ or ‘community benefit’ approach.

Negotiating development: Planning gain and mitigating impacts

Rationales for Planning Gain

teature of the xlew framework lies in its comprehensivelless48 and the hope that creating a single body to supervis;e ptactice will lea(l to the emergence of coherent pl inciples. This is in contrast to the mole general failure to co-ordinate policy-making on bioethic;.49 Neverthelesss wllen the new fiamework is coIlsidered in terms of its effectiveness as a method of making healt}l professionals accountable, a more cautious welcome is in order. In general, Erlglish law has been reluctant to intrude on the clinical freedom which health professionals, and paIticularly doctors, have established.5° Some features of the way in which the new Authority is to operate will make the professions responsive to lay concerns. There ale lay members on the Authority, reports to Parliament and the possibility of more precise Government contlol. Nowhere, however, is there any guarantee that those most affected by the matters at stake will have a voice. Lay participation is sought through the betlevolence of the great and the good, not by empowering consumers. As a result, the plactical effect of the powers given to the licensing authority may turn out to be more the centralisation of medical power than the opening of professional values to public debate.

Integrated Pollution Control in the Environmental Protection Act 1990: A Coming of Age of Environmental Law?

Abstract. The availability of large amounts of data is starting to impact how the
wind energy community works. From turbine design to plant layout,
construction, commissioning, and maintenance and operations, new
processes and business models are springing up. This is the process of
digitalisation, and it promises improved efficiency and greater insight,
ultimately leading to increased energy capture and significant savings
for wind plant operators, thus reducing the levelised cost of energy.
Digitalisation is also impacting research, where it is both easing and
speeding up collaboration, as well as making research results more
accessible. This is the basis for innovations that can be taken up by
end users. But digitalisation faces barriers. This paper uses a
literature survey and the results from an expert elicitation to identify
three common industry-wide barriers to the digitalisation of wind
energy. Comparison with other networked industries and past and ongoing
initiatives to foster digitalisation show that these barriers can only
be overcome by wide-reaching strategic efforts, and so we see these as
“grand challenges” in the digitalisation of wind energy. They are,
first, creating FAIR data frameworks; secondly, connecting people and data to foster innovation; and finally, enabling collaboration and competition between organisations. The grand challenges in the digitalisation of wind energy thus include a mix of technical, cultural, and business aspects that
will need collaboration between businesses, academia, and government to
solve. Working to mitigate them is the beginning of a dynamic process
that will position wind energy as an essential part of a global clean
energy future.


Michael Purdue

Papers

Negotiating Development: Rationales and practice for development obligationsand planning gain

Negotiating development: Planning gain and mitigating impacts

Rationales for Planning Gain

Integrated Pollution Control in the Environmental Protection Act 1990: A Coming of Age of Environmental Law?

Grand challenges in the digitalisation of wind energy