Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries
In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Han, Albert T. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
13 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Land use policy - Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER, 2021, the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:81 ; year:2019 ; pages:644-656 ; extent:13 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV045433062 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV045433062 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626011428.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 190205s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBV00000000000596.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV045433062 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 630 |a 640 |a 610 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Han, Albert T. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 13 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. | ||
| 520 | |a In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Urban development |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Sustainability |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Greenbelt policy |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Comparative policy analysis |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Urban growth management |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Land preservation |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Go, Min Hee |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER |t Land use policy |d 2021 |d the international journal covering all aspects of land use |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV006296785 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:81 |g year:2019 |g pages:644-656 |g extent:13 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 81 |j 2019 |h 644-656 |g 13 | ||
| author_variant |
a t h at ath |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
hanalberttgominhee:2019----:xliighntoavrainfadsarsntoaaayiogen |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019transfer abstract |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 doi GBV00000000000596.pica (DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 630 640 610 VZ Han, Albert T. verfasserin aut Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries 2019transfer abstract 13 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier Go, Min Hee oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER Land use policy 2021 the international journal covering all aspects of land use Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006296785 volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA AR 81 2019 644-656 13 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 doi GBV00000000000596.pica (DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 630 640 610 VZ Han, Albert T. verfasserin aut Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries 2019transfer abstract 13 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier Go, Min Hee oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER Land use policy 2021 the international journal covering all aspects of land use Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006296785 volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA AR 81 2019 644-656 13 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 doi GBV00000000000596.pica (DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 630 640 610 VZ Han, Albert T. verfasserin aut Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries 2019transfer abstract 13 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier Go, Min Hee oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER Land use policy 2021 the international journal covering all aspects of land use Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006296785 volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA AR 81 2019 644-656 13 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 doi GBV00000000000596.pica (DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 630 640 610 VZ Han, Albert T. verfasserin aut Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries 2019transfer abstract 13 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier Go, Min Hee oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER Land use policy 2021 the international journal covering all aspects of land use Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006296785 volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA AR 81 2019 644-656 13 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 doi GBV00000000000596.pica (DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 630 640 610 VZ Han, Albert T. verfasserin aut Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries 2019transfer abstract 13 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier Go, Min Hee oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER Land use policy 2021 the international journal covering all aspects of land use Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006296785 volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA AR 81 2019 644-656 13 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Land use policy Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Land use policy Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:81 year:2019 pages:644-656 extent:13 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Urban development Sustainability Greenbelt policy Comparative policy analysis Urban growth management Land preservation |
| dewey-raw |
630 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Land use policy |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Han, Albert T. @@aut@@ Go, Min Hee @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV006296785 |
| dewey-sort |
3630 |
| id |
ELV045433062 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV045433062</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626011428.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">190205s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000596.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV045433062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Han, Albert T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Urban development</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Greenbelt policy</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Comparative policy analysis</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Urban growth management</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Land preservation</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Go, Min Hee</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Land use policy</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">the international journal covering all aspects of land use</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006296785</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:81</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:644-656</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">81</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="h">644-656</subfield><subfield code="g">13</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Han, Albert T. |
| spellingShingle |
Han, Albert T. ddc 630 Elsevier Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| authorStr |
Han, Albert T. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV006296785 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
630 - Agriculture & related technologies 640 - Home & family management 610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
630 640 610 VZ Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 630 Elsevier Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 630 Elsevier Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation |
| topic_browse |
ddc 630 Elsevier Urban development Elsevier Sustainability Elsevier Greenbelt policy Elsevier Comparative policy analysis Elsevier Urban growth management Elsevier Land preservation |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
m h g mh mhg |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Land use policy |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV006296785 |
| dewey-tens |
630 - Agriculture 640 - Home & family management 610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Land use policy |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV006296785 |
| title |
Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV045433062 (ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1 |
| title_full |
Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| author_sort |
Han, Albert T. |
| journal |
Land use policy |
| journalStr |
Land use policy |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
644 |
| author_browse |
Han, Albert T. |
| container_volume |
81 |
| physical |
13 |
| class |
630 640 610 VZ |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Han, Albert T. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |
| dewey-full |
630 640 610 |
| title_sort |
explaining the national variation of land use: a cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| title_auth |
Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| abstract |
In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. |
| abstractGer |
In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA |
| title_short |
Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Go, Min Hee |
| author2Str |
Go, Min Hee |
| ppnlink |
ELV006296785 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T17:31:17.178Z |
| _version_ |
1803851742242144256 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV045433062</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626011428.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">190205s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000596.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV045433062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0264-8377(17)30725-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">640</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Han, Albert T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In this paper, we examine the merits and pitfalls of greenbelt policy by analyzing the history of greenbelt policy adoption and practice in five countries – UK, Canada, Australia, US and Korea. Despite its local implications, many greenbelt policies have been pursued and implemented at the national level, and yet few studies have incorporated the national context into understanding the scope of greenbelt policy in urban areas. A cross-national approach broadens our understanding about why greenbelt policies have achieved varying levels of success and acceptance in the urban planning process and reveals how national contexts can affect the scope of regional and local planning. Our analysis is built on a continuum across two regimes - UK as a prototype of state-controlled growth restriction regime on the one hand, and US as a prototype of the decentralized privatization regime on the other. Between these two regimes, we place hybrid cases – Canada, Australia and South Korea – that reflect a combination of characteristics in each regime. This typology not only offers a unifying framework to encompass the variants of greenbelt policies, but it also helps explain how changes might occur in strengthening or relaxing the scope of greenbelt policy. We show that although each country (or its subnational jurisdictions) maintains fairly stable greenbelt policy once it is adopted, its scope and direction is not entirely unchangeable but contingent upon the shifting political climate.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Urban development</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Sustainability</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Greenbelt policy</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Comparative policy analysis</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Urban growth management</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Land preservation</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Go, Min Hee</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Son, Yang-Ju ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Land use policy</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="d">the international journal covering all aspects of land use</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006296785</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:81</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:644-656</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">81</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="h">644-656</subfield><subfield code="g">13</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4016294 |