000			01872 a2200397 4500
001			1138209899
005			20250317100405.0
008			250312042016GB eng
020			_a9781138209893
037			_bTaylor & Francis _cGBP 51.99 _fBB
040			_a01
041			_aeng
072	7		_aRN _2thema
072	7		_aTQ _2thema
072	7		_aRGC _2thema
072	7		_aJHB _2thema
072	7		_aJBF _2thema
072	7		_aRP _2thema
072	7		_aRGL _2thema
072	7		_aRN _2bic
072	7		_aTQ _2bic
072	7		_aRGC _2bic
072	7		_aJHB _2bic
072	7		_aJFF _2bic
072	7		_aRP _2bic
072	7		_aRGL _2bic
072	7		_aPOL035010 _2bisac
072	7		_aSCI030000 _2bisac
072	7		_a333.30943 _2bisac
100	1		_aBenjamin Davy
245	1	0	_aLand Policy _bPlanning and the Spatial Consequences of Property
250			_a1
260			_aOxford _bRoutledge _c20160718
300			_a296 p
520			_bGood land policy provides a diversity of land uses with plural property relations. No single kind of property rules fits the purposes of all types of land uses. Neither is a de-tached single family house like a community garden, nor a highway like a retail chain. Each land use needs its own property "fingerprint." The concept of Western ownership works with home ownership, but fails with community gardens, highways, or retail chains. Western ownership also fails in informal settings, particularly in the global South, although informality does not at all entail the absence of property relations. In everyday practice, private and common property relations often accommodate a wide variety of demands made by the owners and users of land. In a stark contrast, many theories of property and land policy fail to recognize plural property relations. The polyrational theory of planning and property reconciles practice and theory.
999			_c1694 _d1694