Purpose There is a resurgence in the adaptive reuse of buildings. However, there is a lack of literature that pulls all the strands of adaptive reuse together. Furthermore, despite claims that it is motivated by the 3 Es of the sustainability triangle, the authors could find no research that critiques adaptive reuse from this perspective. The purpose of this study is to review the literature to collect pertinent information in a single place and to critically examine whether adaptive reuse incorporates the 3 Es of sustainability. Design/methodology/approach The methodological approach of this study is a literature review and a critical analysis of the practice of adaptive review. Findings Adaptive reuse is concentrated at the environment and economic development corners of the sustainability triangle. There are positive interactions along this edge. The authors attribute this to the fact that the same actors – the private and public sectors – are located at both corners of the triangle, and they have shared interests. This is different from the wider sustainability literature, where major actors at each corner are different and tensions along each edge are resolved through mediation. In adaptive reuse, there are no actors at the equity corner of the triangle, and there are minimal attempts to address concerns along the equity–environment and equity–economic development edges of the triangle. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on the USA. Practical implications This study suggests policy interventions that address the equity issue in adaptive reuse. Originality/value This is the first study to provide a succinct review of contemporary adaptive reuse and that places the practice within the framework of the 3 Es of sustainability.

This paper provides a conceptual framework to explain why disparities may exist in food safety code compliance by food stores in different neighborhoods. Explanations include market dynamics, community characteristics, retailer attributes, inspector characteristics, and enforcement approaches, and interactions among the factors. A preliminary and limited empirical test of some of these relationships in Detroit, Michigan shows a higher rate of food safety violations by stores in poorer neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of African-American residents. Stores inspected by female inspectors also scored higher numbers of critical violations, suggesting a need for greater examination of the social relations associated with enforcement interactions in food safety studies.

Infrastructure costs, lot size, and developers' response: the need for an assessment Planners continue to be concerned about large-lot residential development in exurbia (Nelson and Sanchez, 2005). (1) A substantial literature has attempted to explain why this form of development persists [see Byun and Esparza (2005), for a recent synthesis].Missing in the discussions, however, is in-depth research on how on-site costs for infrastructures may influence the decisions of single-family residential land developers (hereafter called developers) to produce large-lot exurban development rather than small-lot development. The omission is surprising, given that developers are integral to the development process (Peiser, 1990) and that their responses to regulations have been seen as contributing to sprawl (Byun and Esparza, 2005;Dowall, 1984;Frieden, 1979). The oversight has resulted in a lack of knowledge about how developers view developmentöin particular, why relatively large-lot exurban development remains popular with developers despite policies that attempt to steer them elsewhere.The objective of this paper is to further our understanding about why developers might be attracted to large lots in exurbia. I do so by examining how developers' on-site costs per lot for the basic infrastructures of sewer and water services and roads vary with lot size, and in turn, how these costs can affect the lot sizes that developers choose. It is not the intention of this paper to address the many other factors that influence the choice of lot sizes historically observed in land development.I utilize on-site costs as the basis for analyses because this measure highlights a conundrum in the literature which, if resolved, can help us to understand why developers choose larger over smaller lots. The conundrum lies in contradictory findings in the literature on the costs of sprawl, which has concluded that on-site costs per lot increase as lot sizes increase [see Najafi et al (2007) and Speir and Stephenson (2002) for the latest findings in this regard], and the literature on developer decision making,

A growing literature has made the case for preserving rural open space and redeveloping inner cities. Together, these polices can contribute to the inside—outside strategy of `new regionalism'. However, it is unclear whether citizens are willing to pay for these two polices. Using data from a survey of Michigan's citizens, statistical analyses were employed to ascertain who would pay for both policies. Of the respondents, 37 per cent would pay for both policies. The coalition of support is centred on younger people, liberals and Whites, and people who are generally satisfied with their communities but are concerned about sprawl. When compared with the results for those who would pay only for one policy, the findings suggest that policy-makers may be able to broaden the coalition of support for policies that can contribute to regional land use governance if measures are taken to ensure that benefits are widely spread.

The literature in the US has extensively examined the policies of state and sub-state areas that are well known for their anti-sprawl measures. This has resulted in little knowledge of what is happening elsewhere. This paper provides a case study of one of the lesser-known states, Michigan, which is representative of the vast majority of non-growth management states. The study finds that Michigan has been influenced by trends from the better-known areas. This has led to a host of state, regional and local-level initiatives, sometimes wrapped in the language of economic development, aimed at curbing sprawl. However, there is little evidence that these initiatives are successful. This is primarily due to the absence of state level mandates for planning, a lack of funding and a strong home rule tradition. The findings are probably repeated in many states across the nation: a proliferation of initiatives, which, with only few exceptions, will not represent best practices.