Divergence in planning for affordable housing: A comparative analysis of England and Portugal

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Sónia Alves
{"title":"Divergence in planning for affordable housing: A comparative analysis of England and Portugal","authors":"Sónia Alves","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2020.100536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Academic and political debates about the extent to which planning influences the volume, type, location and affordability of new housing have not gained as much prominence in Portugal as in England, where planning obligations are aimed at providing new affordable housing, as well as a mix of housing tenures. Yet, in England, the use of Section 106 in planning agreements to secure affordable housing as a proportion of new developments has received mixed reactions: at times considered a successful public value-capture tool while, at others, as a neoliberal policy that is not generating the expected results.</p><p>The purpose of this research, which is based on literature reviews and semi-structured interviews with government advisors, local officials, and academics, is to investigate why and how planning for affordable housing has been used in England and not in Portugal. The data shows that divergence in the adoption of planning obligations for affordable housing is the result of different but interdependent causes: path dependency (a concept which suggests that past events influence present and future ones), ideology (values, beliefs and a general political orientation regarding how society ought to be and how to improve it), and planning cultures (collective social practices with their specific roots, legal traditions, ethos, etc.).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"156 ","pages":"Article 100536"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100536","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030590062030057X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Academic and political debates about the extent to which planning influences the volume, type, location and affordability of new housing have not gained as much prominence in Portugal as in England, where planning obligations are aimed at providing new affordable housing, as well as a mix of housing tenures. Yet, in England, the use of Section 106 in planning agreements to secure affordable housing as a proportion of new developments has received mixed reactions: at times considered a successful public value-capture tool while, at others, as a neoliberal policy that is not generating the expected results.

The purpose of this research, which is based on literature reviews and semi-structured interviews with government advisors, local officials, and academics, is to investigate why and how planning for affordable housing has been used in England and not in Portugal. The data shows that divergence in the adoption of planning obligations for affordable housing is the result of different but interdependent causes: path dependency (a concept which suggests that past events influence present and future ones), ideology (values, beliefs and a general political orientation regarding how society ought to be and how to improve it), and planning cultures (collective social practices with their specific roots, legal traditions, ethos, etc.).

经济适用房规划的分歧:英国和葡萄牙的比较分析
在葡萄牙,关于规划对新住房的数量、类型、位置和可负担性的影响程度的学术和政治辩论没有像在英国那样引人注目,在英国,规划义务的目标是提供新的可负担住房,以及混合住房。然而,在英国,在规划协议中使用第106条来确保经济适用房作为新开发项目的一部分,收到了不同的反应:有时被认为是一个成功的公共价值获取工具,而在其他时候,作为一项新自由主义政策,没有产生预期的结果。本研究基于文献综述和对政府顾问、地方官员和学者的半结构化访谈,目的是调查为什么以及如何在英国使用经济适用房规划,而不是在葡萄牙。数据表明,在负担得起的住房的规划义务方面的分歧是由不同但相互依存的原因造成的:路径依赖(一种认为过去的事件影响现在和未来的事件的概念)、意识形态(关于社会应该如何以及如何改善社会的价值观、信仰和一般政治取向)和规划文化(具有特定根源、法律传统、精神等的集体社会实践)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信