The formal and informal tools of design governance

Carmona, Matthew

doi:10.1080/13574809.2016.1234338

Cited by 62 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Design governance tools are categorized as formal (legally de ned by statute) or informal (discretional/non-statutory) tools. Formal tools are categorized as guidance, incentive, and control, and informal tools range from the gathering of evidence to the dissemination of knowledge through the active promotion of design, the evaluation of design quality, andnally direct assistance with projects and/or design through the lens of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Envi-ronment (CABE) in the UK (Carmona, 2017). Design guidelines can be described as statements that specify how to meet design objectives (Lang, 1996) based on urban design issues such as the district-context relationship, the scale-character relationship, the public-private space balance and quality, the accessibility-permeability relationship, the density-use relationship, mixed use and typology, and sustainable structures and environments.…”

Section: Experiences From the Uk: Urban Design And Community Engagemementioning

confidence: 99%

Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey

Polat

Yıldız

2019

Urbani Izziv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, central and local governments have carried out studies to establish a legal administrative infrastructure for urban design and to develop urban design guidance to preserve the identity of historic cities under the pressure of rapid urbanization in Turkey. The main aim of this article is to explain how we implemented a participatory urban design guidance (PUrDeG) model for cultural heritage sites, which was developed as part of a research project. We explain how we used various techniques to engage various actors in preparing urban design guidelines for a cultural heritage site. In addition, the article discusses the importance of community engagement techniques and processes in developing urban design guidance, and the context of guidelines for sustainable conservation of cultural heritage sites with examples from the United Kingdom and Turkey. It then presents a case study conducted in the Hanlar District, a Unesco world heritage site in Bursa, Turkey. The case study includes research on planning decisions, site analysis, a survey of urban residents, in depth interviews with local artisans, and an urban design workshop with various actors. The main outcomes of this study include a presentation of how to use various community engagement techniques to prepare urban design guidelines for cultural heritage sites in Turkey, an urban design guidance system for Bursa, and a list of recommendations related to urban design guidelines for the Hanlar District and Bursa in the light of UK experience.

show abstract

Section: Experiences From the Uk: Urban Design And Community Engagemementioning

confidence: 99%

Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey

Polat

Yıldız

2019

Urbani Izziv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst some of these, for example, façade continuity or traffic speeds are relatively easily specified, most need more careful interpretation in the light of local circumstances and this will lend itself more easily to control through the informal tools of design governance (Carmona 2017). They are therefore likely to be 'aspirational' rather than required qualities.…”

Section: The Collective Evidence On Place Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These can be seen as first order highly desirable qualities that also happen to be very tangible and objective and therefore measurable qualities. By implication, therefore, if the will is there, they can be readily articulated and specified by policy makers through the formal tools of design governance (Carmona 2017) in a manner that can 'require' their delivery.…”

Section: The Collective Evidence On Place Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes

Carmona¹

2018

Journal of Urban Design

Self Cite

193

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the link between the quality of the built environment and its value, in health, social, economic and environmental terms. This is theorized as 'place value' which, alongside 'place quality' , is conceptualized as existing within a virtuous loop in which quality dictates value and value defines quality. To test this, a systematic review brought together wide-ranging international research evidence. The work confirmed a range of definitive associations between the quality of place and its place derived value. It also makes a clear link back from the evidence on place value to the sorts of qualities that enhance or detract from that value. These, in turn, define the constituent elements of place quality.

show abstract

“…Hood and Margetts (2007) describe it with three branches: what happens 'inside' government; the 'subject(s)' governments are interested in; and, the 'tools' that governments use. Focusing on the 'tools' of government, Carmona (2017) argues that it includes an array of instruments, approaches, and actions that policy-makers implement towards public policy outcomes. In other words, the tools of government approach highlights 'means', where policy goals can be achieved, rather than 'scope', wherein a spectrum of intervention can be determined (Henstra 2016).…”

Section: Tools Of Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Government instruments including legislation and budgeting can directly affect society, but governments can also influence society by using different intermediaries in indirect ways through networks. Carmona (2017) also argues that a multi-levelled typology of government focusing on the degree of 'intervention' may be needed: formal (guidance, incentives and control), informal (evidence, knowledge, promotion, evaluation and assistance).…”

Section: Tools Of Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach

Lee

Vries

Chigbu

2019

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while in West and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses-structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured.The North and South Korean (re-)unification quagmire is not new in the world. There are many divided countries in need of reunification and there are others that were once divided but finally became reunified. Countries like Cyprus (Turkish and Greek Cypriots), Sudan (Sudan and South Sudan), and Yemen (South and North Yemen) are some countries in need of reunification. China, Vietnam and Germany are examples of countries that were once divided and then became reunified.Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 21 2 of 26 systems differed vis-à-vis the ideological role of the state, this raised challenges during and after the (re-)unification process.Land governance has been critical to this transforming institutional form and function (Augustinus 2009;Borras and Franco 2010;Deininger and Feder 2009;Enemark 2012). According to Palmer et al. (2009), land governance ruminates more intensely on the matter of the rules, processes and structures about land and its use and concern about who made decisions and how implemented and enforced. As the product of open-ended interactions within structures and agency, land governance can differ significantly depending on the state structures (e.g., unitary state; federal state) and the (re-)unification mechanisms (e.g., civilizat...

show abstract

The formal and informal tools of design governance

Cited by 62 publications

References 28 publications

Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey

Community engagement in developing urban design guidance for heritage sites: The case of Bursa, Turkey

Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes

Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About