Jonathan Murdoch

What are the key rationalities that underpin planning policy discourses and how do they 'frame' seemingly irreconcilable conflicts around development and environmental protection? Providing a thorough assessment of these important questions, this stimulating book reviews planning policy in the UK and the rationality of 'sustainable development'. Supported by a wealth of empirical material collected over the past ten years, the study examines the national, regional and local tiers of planning for housing. It analyzes whether the rationality of planning for 'sustainable development' allows a new spatial sensibility to inform planning policy, and whether it still responds to the social demands that were previously incorporated within the developmental method. The overriding concern, which the authors respond to and expand upon, is whether planning for sustainable development can provide a satisfactory basis upon which to re-establish contemporary planning.

In the wake of BSE, the threat to ban fox hunting and Foot and Mouth disease, the English countryside appears to be in turmoil. Long-standing uses of rural space are in crisis and, unsurprisingly, political processes in rural areas are marked by conflicts between groups, such as farmers, environmentalists, developers and local residents. Using an innovative theoretical approach based on 'networks of conventions', this book investigates the 'regionalisation' of the English countryside through a series of case-studies. These studies are based on a set of 'ideal types': 'the preserved' countryside, where environmental pressures are strongly expressed; the 'contested' countryside, where development processes are shaped by disputes between agrarian and environmental interests; and the 'paternalistic' countryside, where large landowners continue to oversee patterns of land development. It looks in detail at landowners, residents, politicians, planners, farmers, and environmentalists and shows how these groups compete. The Differentiated Countryside argues that the countryside is increasingly governed by regional policies. It becomes hard to discern a single English countryside; we see the emergence of multiple countrysides, places where diverse modes of identity are expressed and differing forms of development take place. Such diversity, it is argued, now lies at the heart of rural England.

From farm to fork, the conventional food chain is under enormous pressure to respond to a whole series of new challenges - food scares in rich countries, food security concerns in poor countries, and a burgeoning problem of obesity in all countries. As more and more people demand to know where their food comes from, and how it is produced, issues of place, power, and provenance assume increasing significance for producers, consumers, and regulators, challenging the corporate forces that shape the 'placeless foodscape'. Far from being confined to niche products, questions about the origins of food are also surfacing in the conventional sector, where labelling has become a major political issue. Drawing on theories of multi-level governance, three leading scholars in the field explore the geo-politics of the food chain in different spatial arenas: the World Trade Organization, where free trade principles clash with fair trade concerns in the debate about agricultural reform; the European Union, where producers are under pressure from environmentalists for a more traceable and sustainable food system; and the US, where there is a striking contradiction between the rhetoric of free markets and the reality of a heavily subsidised farming sector. To understand the local impact of these global trends, the authors explore three different regional worlds of food: the traditional world of localised quality in Tuscany, the peripheral world of commodity production in Wales, and the frontier world of agri-business in California.

In the wake of BSE, the threat to ban fox hunting and Foot and Mouth disease, the English countryside appears to be in turmoil. Long-standing uses of rural space are in crisis and, unsurprisingly, political processes in rural areas are marked by conflicts between groups, such as farmers, environmentalists, developers and local residents. Using an innovative theoretical approach based on 'networks of conventions', this book investigates the 'regionalisation' of the English countryside through a series of case-studies. These studies are based on a set of 'ideal types': 'the preserved' countryside, where environmental pressures are strongly expressed; the 'contested' countryside, where development processes are shaped by disputes between agrarian and environmental interests; and the 'paternalistic' countryside, where large landowners continue to oversee patterns of land development. It looks in detail at landowners, residents, politicians, planners, farmers, and environmentalists and shows how these groups compete. The Differentiated Countryside argues that the countryside is increasingly governed by regional policies. It becomes hard to discern a single English countryside; we see the emergence of multiple countrysides, places where diverse modes of identity are expressed and differing forms of development take place. Such diversity, it is argued, now lies at the heart of rural England.

What are the key rationalities that underpin planning policy discourses and how do they 'frame' seemingly irreconcilable conflicts around development and environmental protection? Providing a thorough assessment of these important questions, this stimulating book reviews planning policy in the UK and the rationality of 'sustainable development'. Supported by a wealth of empirical material collected over the past ten years, the study examines the national, regional and local tiers of planning for housing. It analyzes whether the rationality of planning for 'sustainable development' allows a new spatial sensibility to inform planning policy, and whether it still responds to the social demands that were previously incorporated within the developmental method. The overriding concern, which the authors respond to and expand upon, is whether planning for sustainable development can provide a satisfactory basis upon which to re-establish contemporary planning.