Negotiation processes in land and property development: an experimental study

Samsura, D. Ary A.; Krabben, Erwin van der; Deemen, A.M.A. van; Heijden, R.E.C.M. van der

doi:10.1080/09599916.2015.1009846

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The implied research agenda is enormous and with respect to planning is in its nascent stage (Adams and Tiesdell, 2010;Ferrari et al, 2011;Samsura et al, 2015). In this contribution we aim to focus on just one aspect of what this agenda might entail -varying approaches to the market making activity of managing liquidity in land supply.…”

Section: The Research: Methods and Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”

Lord

O’Brien

2017

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning has been widely vilified for the role it plays in disrupting the development process, hindering economic growth and creating the conditions for undersupply in housing markets characterised by unaffordability. In this paper we hope to show that the analyses that support this view of planning are incomplete because of the theoretical limitations of the neoclassical tradition from which they emerge. By way of alternative we posit an account of planning that draws upon game theory and behavioural economics to explore those aspects of the activity that serve to animate the development process. This interpretation of planning as a 'market maker' is explored through empirical case study research from three Continental European contexts where planning is charged with playing an economically active role to control liquidity.

show abstract

Section: The Research: Methods and Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”

Lord

O’Brien

2017

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meski secara umum proses negosiasi atau bargaining mencoba mencapai kesepakatan atau konsensus. Namun demikian terdapat kemungkinan sebuah konsensus mungkin tidak mencerminkan kepentingan terbaik semua pihak, oleh karena itu dalam beberapa kasus, hasil terbaik hanya dapat dicapai dengan tidak mencapai kesepakatan sama sekali (Samsura, van der Krabben, van Deemen, & van der Heijden, 2015).…”

Section: Arti Penting Negosiasiunclassified

Pembangunan Konsensus: Solusi Perencanaan Di Bawah Tekanan?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planning in public domain in practice is seemingly seen as a utopian concept. Once the knowledge that becomes the basis of planning is built on the pure understandings to cope the problem objectively, in reality, it turns into inflexible and rigid approaches when dealing with various interests, namely political and social subjects. This is because of the distinct perspectives and understanding owned by people, the planning stakeholders which are divergent, and stirred by individual interest. What becomes an evident is that the plentiful of interest tends to trigger the opposite arguments. Accordingly, planning in public domain that hoped to have neutral position is like having a castle in the air, because the individual interests of the stakeholders of planning seems to be inseparable aspects. Planners are then required to have multi-skill of a wide range knowledge, indeed to find it like a search for demigods, albeit by involving many skill groups that ends on a new issue of integrating thinking. This article will therefore attempt to parse a possible problem resolution through the concept of consensus-building, by first explaining its relevance in the context of planning, complexity and commonly used methods, in order to achieve common goals of development, and thereby placing the planner and their plans becomes as a valuable works, its worhted.

show abstract

“…Muñoz Gielen et al, 2017). These negotiations are often highly complex (Samsura and van der Krabben, 2012;Samsura et al, 2010Samsura et al, , 2015 and may also have negative consequences from both input-and output-legitimacy perspectives (Campbell et al, 2000;Crow, 1998;Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015;Mäntysalo and Saglie, 2010). In public land development, such negotiations are avoided.…”

Section: Public Objectives and Public Land Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland

Valtonen

Falkenbach

Viitanen

2017

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article 1: Securing public objectives in large-scale urban development: Comparison of public and private land development The author was responsible for initiating, executing and writing the paper. The co-authors provided advice, comments and suggestions. Article 2: Risk management in public land development projects: Comparative case study in Finland, and the Netherlands The author was responsible for initiating, executing and writing the paper except for the data collection and analysis of the Dutch case study, which was conducted by Prof. van der Krabben. Otherwise, the co-authors provided advice, comments and suggestions.

show abstract

Negotiation processes in land and property development: an experimental study

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”

What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”

Pembangunan Konsensus: Solusi Perencanaan Di Bawah Tekanan?

Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About