A new process for energy facility siting

Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, 1980.MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH.Includes bibliographical references.by Deborah Fae Cohen Shmueli.M.C.P

Medieval Emergencies and the Contemporary Debate

Abstract The contemporary debate on emergencies and the state of exception often relies on historical examples. Yet, the most recent discussions on the state of exception (a legal construct that deals with emergencies) also assume its modern inception. This article shows that medieval France formulated its own state of exception, meant to deal with emergencies, based on the legal principle of necessity. This article has two purposes. First, it challenges the historical narrative inherent in the contemporary debate, which assumes the modern inception of the state of exception. Second, it reinforces the trepidation with which many scholars today view the uses and abuses of the state of exception. This article does so by showing that the French crown used and abused the medieval principle of necessity in ways similar to current uses of the state of exception; it served similar purposes. Just as some scholars fear today, the French medieval state of exception often served as a pretext meant to change the legal order, turning the exception into the ordinary. The French crown used the state of exception to enhance its power, and it was central in the long process of building the early-modern French state

Environmental justice in the Israeli context

The ideal of environmental justice is a far reach for Israel, a country with severely limited land area, an overriding concern with security, and a significant minority population. Nevertheless, it is urgent that policy makers take steps in that direction, both for the health of the nation and for moral rightness. After a survey of theoretical approaches to environmental justice, the author offers an operative definition and theory appropriate to the Israeli situation. This approach, embodying all facets of the theory, is applied to a case study of the Arab town of Sachnin, and the policy implications that it indicates are explored. Specific steps that could help progress toward the ultimate goal of environmental justice are suggested.

Mining Negotiation Theory for Planning Insights

Planning in the public domain entails responding to and shaping anticipated social and resource needs in the uncertain future. Knowledge, resources, and authority are fragmented and dispersed, so planning decisions require interaction among multiple actors. Thus, planning is essentially joint decision making, which is in turn inherently transactional (negotiated). Negotiation language has already become embedded in the planning literature, but the contributions of negotiation scholars have yet to command the conceptual and analytic attention they deserve. This article calls for renewed exploration of the potential contributions of negotiation theory and practice to our understanding of planning situations and to the design of decision processes that yield implementable results. We begin by proposing a conceptual link between negotia¬tion and planning and then illustrate the usefulness of this linkage by mapping three key negotiation concepts into the planning process

Mining Negotiation Theory for Planning Insights

Planning in the public domain entails responding to and shaping anticipated social and resource needs in the uncertain future. Knowledge, resources, and authority are fragmented and dispersed, so planning decisions require interaction among multiple actors. Thus, planning is essentially joint decision making, which is in turn inherently transactional (negotiated). Negotiation language has already become embedded in the planning literature, but the contributions of negotiation scholars have yet to command the conceptual and analytic attention they deserve. This article calls for renewed exploration of the potential contributions of negotiation theory and practice to our understanding of planning situations and to the design of decision processes that yield implementable results. We begin by proposing a conceptual link between negotia¬tion and planning and then illustrate the usefulness of this linkage by mapping three key negotiation concepts into the planning process

Negotiations in the Public Sector: Applying Negotiation Theory to Multiparty Conflicts

Collaborative processes in the public sector involve multiple parties at scales ranging from the very local, to city-wide, and to regional. While facilitation/mediation of these processes relies heavily on negotiation theory, much of the literature focuses on two-party (dyadic) interactions. To explore whether multiparty processes warrant special theoretical/practical consideration, we analyze multiparty cases at three scales: a land use dispute in a small Israeli locality; a transportation/land use conflict in a city in Oregon; and a planning effort in the Northeast Ohio region. We find that some negotiation theory elements hold true in multiparty situations, although often at a heightened level of intensity and complexity. However, important qualitative differences call for added research attention. The cases illuminate seven areas typical of multiparty negotiations that warrant further study: interdependent “BATNAs,” long time frames and changing political contexts, multiple sequential and parallel processes, challenges of representation, alliances and coalitions, information and communication flows, and concerns about interventions, agreement types, and decision rules

Negotiations in the Public Sector: Applying Negotiation Theory to Multiparty Conflicts

Collaborative processes in the public sector involve multiple parties at scales ranging from the very local, to city-wide, and to regional. While facilitation/mediation of these processes relies heavily on negotiation theory, much of the literature focuses on two-party (dyadic) interactions. To explore whether multiparty processes warrant special theoretical/practical consideration, we analyze multiparty cases at three scales: a land use dispute in a small Israeli locality; a transportation/land use conflict in a city in Oregon; and a planning effort in the Northeast Ohio region. We find that some negotiation theory elements hold true in multiparty situations, although often at a heightened level of intensity and complexity. However, important qualitative differences call for added research attention. The cases illuminate seven areas typical of multiparty negotiations that warrant further study: interdependent “BATNAs,” long time frames and changing political contexts, multiple sequential and parallel processes, challenges of representation, alliances and coalitions, information and communication flows, and concerns about interventions, agreement types, and decision rules

Mining Negotiation Theory for Planning Insights

Planning in the public domain entails responding to and shaping anticipated social and resource needs in the uncertain future. Knowledge, resources, and authority are fragmented and dispersed, so planning decisions require interaction among multiple actors. Thus, planning is essentially joint decision making, which is in turn inherently transactional (negotiated). Negotiation language has already become embedded in the planning literature, but the contributions of negotiation scholars have yet to command the conceptual and analytic attention they deserve. This article calls for renewed exploration of the potential contributions of negotiation theory and practice to our understanding of planning situations and to the design of decision processes that yield implementable results. We begin by proposing a conceptual link between negotia¬tion and planning and then illustrate the usefulness of this linkage by mapping three key negotiation concepts into the planning process

Mining Negotiation Theory for Planning Insights

Planning in the public domain entails responding to and shaping anticipated social and resource needs in the uncertain future. Knowledge, resources, and authority are fragmented and dispersed, so planning decisions require interaction among multiple actors. Thus, planning is essentially joint decision making, which is in turn inherently transactional (negotiated). Negotiation language has already become embedded in the planning literature, but the contributions of negotiation scholars have yet to command the conceptual and analytic attention they deserve. This article calls for renewed exploration of the potential contributions of negotiation theory and practice to our understanding of planning situations and to the design of decision processes that yield implementable results. We begin by proposing a conceptual link between negotia¬tion and planning and then illustrate the usefulness of this linkage by mapping three key negotiation concepts into the planning process