University space planning and space-type profiles

Universities planning the provision of space for their teaching requirements need to do so in a fashion that reduces capital and maintenance costs whilst still providing a high-quality level of service. Space plans should aim to provide sufficient capacity without incurring excessive costs due to over-capacity. A simple measure used to estimate over-provision is utilisation. Essentially, the utilisation is the fraction of seats that are used in practice, or the ratio of demand to supply. However, studies usually find that utilisation is low, often only 20–40%, and this is suggestive of significant over-capacity.

Our previous work has provided methods to improve such space planning. They identify a critical level of utilisation as the highest level that can be achieved whilst still reliably satisfying the demand for places to allocate teaching events. In this paper, we extend this body of work to incorporate the notions of event-types and space-types. Teaching events have multiple ‘event-types’, such as lecture, tutorial, workshop, etc., and there are generally corresponding space-types. Matching the type of an event to a room of a corresponding space-type is generally desirable. However, realistically, allocation happens in a mixed space-type environment where teaching events of a given type are allocated to rooms of another space-type; e.g., tutorials will borrow lecture theatres or workshop rooms.

We propose a model and methodology to quantify the effects of space-type mixing and establish methods to search for better space-type profiles; where the term “space-type profile” refers to the relative numbers of each type of space. We give evidence that these methods have the potential to improve utilisation levels. Hence, the contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we present informative studies of the effects of space-type mixing on utilisation, and critical utilisations. Secondly, we present straightforward though novel methods to determine better space-type profiles, and give an example in which the resulting profiles are indeed significantly improved.

Sustainability and the Multifunctional Landscape: An Assessment of the Cairngorms National Park Authority’s Approach to Planning and Management in Upland Scotland.

Upland Scotland contains some of Britain’s most prized areas of natural heritage value. However, although such areas may appear both ‘wild’ and ‘remote’, these are typically working landscapes which symbolise the interdependence of nature and society. The complexity of this relationship means that management responses will need to address a multitude of potentially conflicting priorities whilst at the same time ensuring that sufficient social and institutional capital exists to allow for the promotion of landscape integrity. The introduction of national parks to Scotland in the form of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 allows for a high-level of protection for designated areas in upland Scotland. Yet, whilst the recent Act outlines the statutory purpose and direction national parks should take, it allows a significant degree of flexibility in theway in which the Actmay be implemented. This level of discretion allows for significant local distinctiveness within the model but also raises questions about the potential effectiveness of chosen responses. In order to assess the potential implications of a model rooted in self-determination,we provide a case study review of the institutional basis of the Cairngorms National Park along with an assessment of the strategic character of the first National Park Plan. It is argued that whilst the Cairngorms National Park Authority has developed a significant level of stakeholder engagement, the authority may struggle to bridge the policy-implementation gap. Although a number of shortcomings are identified, particular concerns relate to the potential mismatch between strategic ambition and local level capacity.

‘A system that works for the sea’? Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning

This paper aims to contribute to the current debate on Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) by exploring the issue of stakeholder engagement. MSP is an emergent policy field that is subject to an increasing body of research, yet the role, scope and nature of participatory engagement within the process remains a neglected topic. This paper briefly reviews the nature of the ‘marine problem’, to which MSP is seen to be the response and describes the emergence of MSP policy in the UK with specific emphasis on participatory aspects. Drawing on the experience of terrestrial planning it discusses the potential benefits of stakeholder engagement in MSP and highlights some of the key issues that need to be taken into account when shaping stakeholder input into the process. It then goes on to describe the findings from a series of interviews with key stakeholders in the Irish Sea Region, which suggest that we need to develop a more critical and deeper understanding of how various interests frame the ‘marine problem’, and how they see their role in shaping the form of the MSP process. This highlights the importance of encouraging stakeholder involvement in MSP, the need to develop a shared vision of a ‘sea interest’. Priorities are then set for research to support this important policy agenda.

Planning Through Dialogue for Rural Development: The European Citizens’ Panel Initiative

This paper presents a narrative of the operation of the European Citizens’ Panel that reported in 2007 on the future roles of rural areas. This dialogue was located within a wider and recent engagement by the EU with its citizens following rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. The paper draws attention to the contemporary rural development challenges in Europe that were debated by eight regional panels as a prelude to a wider European deliberation. The working method of the European Citizens’ Panel is outlined and critical commentary is provided on the interaction between planning through dialogue, EU citizenship renewal, and the shaping of bottom-up development trajectories.