How big is your neighbourhood? Spatial implications of market participation among Filipino smallholders

We present a procedure for estimating two quantities defining the spatial externality in discrete-choice commonly referred to as 'the neighbourhood effect'. One quantity, the propensity for neighbours to make the same decision, reflects traditional preoccupations; the other quantity, the magnitude of the neighbourhood itself, is novel. Because both quantities have fundamental bearing on the magnitude of the spatial externality, it is desirable to have a robust algorithm for their estimation. Using recent advances in Bayesian estimation and model comparison, we devise such an algorithm and illustrate its application to a sample of northern-Filipino smallholders. We determine that a significant, positive, neighbourhood effect exists; that, among the 12 geographical units comprising the sample, the neighbourhood spans a three-unit radius; and that policy prescriptions are significantly altered when calculations account for the spatial externality.

Beyond tokenism? Community-led planning and rational choices: findings from participants in local agenda-setting at the neighbourhood scale in England

The article confronts some key issues raised in the literature on public participation via a series of interrogatory questions drawn from rational choice theory. These are considered in relation to the design and process of public participation opportunities in planning and wider processes of local governance at the neighbourhood scale. In doing this, the article draws on recent research that has looked in some depth at a form of community-led planning (CLP) in England. The motives and expectations of participants, the abilities of participants, as well as the conditions in which participation takes place are seen as important factors. It is contended that the issues raised by rational choice theory are pertinent to emerging efforts to engage communities. As such, the article concludes that advocates of public participation or community engagement should not be afraid of responding to the challenges posed by questions of motive and reward of participants if lasting and worthwhile participation is to be established. Indeed, questions such as 'what's in it for me?' should be regarded as legitimate, necessary and indeed standard, in order to co-devise meaningful and durable participation opportunities and appropriate institutional environments. However, it is also maintained that wider considerations and capacity questions will also need to be confronted if participation is to become embedded as part of participatory neighbourhood-scale planning.

Planning at the neighbourhood scale: localism, dialogic politics and the modulation of community action

This paper builds upon literature examining the foreclosing of community interventions to show how a resident-led anti-road-noise campaign in South-Eastern England has been framed, managed and modulated by authorities. We situate the case within wider debates considering dialogical politics. For advocates, this offers the potential for empowerment through non-traditional forums (Beck, 1994; Giddens, 1994). Others view such trends, most recently expressed as part of the localism agenda, with suspicion (Haughton et al, 2013; Mouffe, 2005). The paper brings together these literatures to analyse the points at which modulation occurs in the community planning process. We describe the types of counter-tactics residents deployed to deflect the modulation of their demands, and the events that led to the outcome. We find that community planning offers a space - albeit one that is tightly circumscribed - within which (select) groups can effect change. The paper argues that the detail of neighbourhood-scale actions warrant further attention, especially as governmental enthusiasm for dialogical modes of politics shows no sign of abating.

Sticking to the script? The co-production of Neighbourhood Planning in England

Efforts to engage with communities in spatial planning have been criticised as being tokenistic, vehicles for co-option or designed to promote neo-liberal agendas. The introduction of neighbourhood planning (NP) in England under the Localism Act (2011) is claimed by proponents to be a step change in the way that local communities are involved in planning their own areas. However, little empirical evidence has yet emerged to substantiate such claims, or provide details about the practices and experiences of NP. The paper highlights that there are numerous parties involved in the co-production of Neighbourhood Development Plans and there are numerous instances where ideas, policies and priorities that emerge from within neighbourhoods are being ‘rescripted’ to ensure conformity to a bounded form of collaboration.

The take-up of Neighbourhood Planning in England 2011-2015

Exploration of how neighbourhoods and others have responded to the UK government’s localism agenda in England, and specifically towards Neighbourhood Planning (NP), is important given that NP is a prominent part of that policy agenda. It is also of interest as the ramifications emerge for planning practice in the formal introduction of statutory plans which are ostensibly led by communities (Parker et al, 2015; Gallent, 2013). There is a necessary task to provide critical commentary on the socio-economic impact of localist policy. The paper explores the issues arising from experience thus far and highlights the take-up of Neighbourhood Planning since 2011. This assessment shows how a vast majority of those active have been in parished areas and in less-deprived areas. This indicates that government needs to do more to ensure that NP is accessible and worthwhile for a wider range of communities.