Search results

Both guidance to transport planning practitioners and scientific literature advocate the adoption of in-depth and inclusive participation and consultation methods when developing new transport plans and measures. The motivations for this normative stance are however unclear, other than general statements that public participation is inherently a good thing, and that new forms of transport planning must be different from what has gone before. However, these documents cite little or no evidence to demonstrate that more participatory transport planning has produced ‘better’ decisions or outcomes. It is also important to note that the legitimacy conferred on governments from adopting this form of participation and consultation is only one of several forms of legitimacy. The purpose of this chapter is thus to attempt to assess whether more participatory approaches to transport planning do indeed lead to ‘better’ decisions and outcomes. It does this by developing, based on the literature, a number of criteria by which to judge the decisions made and outcomes delivered. It then reviews the experience of consultation and participation in a non-random sample of four pairs of transport plans or measures, and evaluates the experience in each against the criteria developed. It finds little evidence that more in-depth and inclusive participation processes that follow the normative stance found in practitioner guidance and the literature lead to better outcomes, and some evidence that such processes may in some cases compromise legitimacy by slowing and changing measure implementation.

This chapter focusses primarily on the short-term measures and policy reactions of transport operators and regulators to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020/2021 (such as the introduction of physical distancing and mask wearing) but also considers those policies which directly influence public transport (such as parking management and working from home). Emphasis is placed on the experience in a number of jurisdictions to identify the influence of varying governmental level responses to the pandemic. The approaches of different jurisdictions are compared using a narrative approach to help identify policy narrative elements by policy actors as the pandemic unfolded. Such an approach enables us to focus on how decision-makers can learn from the COVID-19 experience to better react to future unexpected incidents. In identifying the future policy implications and challenges, the chapter suggests that strategic planning will need to respond to both the ‘current normal’ and the ‘next normal’, and will require flexibility and tight integration between urban planning and public transport planning, as well as private transport and long-distance transport. The chapter also highlights the importance of learning from the experience of other jurisdictions and disciplines (such as disaster management) and offers suggestions for further research.

Urban transport plays a key role in reducing climate gas emissions. However, public policies are developed and implemented in an increasingly complex, fragmented, and multilevelled society. This chapter focuses on how interactive political leadership can address challenges related to spatial justice, network cooperation, and communication to increase legitimate and robust policies. Through in-depth case studies of the Norwegian urban regions of Trondheim and Nord-Jaeren, the importance of ensuring broad political alliances, handling spatial complexity, strong political leadership, as well as engaging in dialogue and communication with the public is shown. This may be more challenging to achieve in a complex institutional structure. We argue that governance structures reflect dynamics of the urban regions in which they are implemented. Related to our two empirical cases, the urban structure of Nord-Jaeren is more complex, compared to that of Trondheim, and likewise is their governance network. Linking the conditions of interactive political leadership to the three interconnected urban governance challenges, we see that contextual characteristics are important to explain differences in political leadership and public engagement.

The introduction of more flexible lease terms within the structure of commercial leases in the UK generates a number of challenging issues for investors, occupiers and their advisers. This emerging structural change requires a new approach to the management and pricing of commercial real estate. This paper examines the factors underpinning the desire for greater corporate agility, including business planning and risk management; globalisation; and existing and proposed changes to accountancy standards. In addition, the paper considers innovation in the supply of space and the substance of space contracts. It is the contention of this research that it is possible for all parties to derive equal utility from greater flexibility by matching occupier and investor requirements. However, any attempt to price the risk reallocation rationally must encapsulate the likelihood of experiencing greater income volatility as well as the probability of a break clause being exercised or, more specifically, the risk of experiencing costs associated with voids and re‐letting.

Changes in the physical environments of health care settings have become increasingly common to meet the evolving needs of the health care marketplace, new technologies, and infrastructure demands. Physical environment change takes many forms including new build construction, renovation of existing space, and relocation of units with little to no construction customization. The interrelated nature of the complex socio-technical health care system suggests that even small environmental modifications can result in system-level changes. Environmental modifications can lead to unintended consequences and introduce the potential for latent safety threats. Engaging users throughout the change lifecycle allows for iterative design and testing of system modifications. This chapter introduces a flexible process model, PROcess for the Design of User-Centered Environments (PRODUCE), designed to guide system change. The model was developed and refined across a series of real-world renovations and relocations in a large multihospital health care system. Utilizing the principles of user-centered design, human factors, and in-situ simulation, the model engages users in the planning, testing, and implementation of physical environment change. Case studies presented here offer exemplars of how to modify the model to support individual project objectives and outcomes to assess at each stage of the project.

Higher education (HE) in the UK has recently suffered financial pressure due to reduced central funding, and the requirement to widen student access. The estate is typically the second highest revenue expense and is an obvious target for efficiency gains. Sector‐wide statistics show there are opportunities for improving efficiency and many influential bodies have advocated space charging as a way of achieving them. This paper aims to investigate space performance indicators for evidence that space charging improves space use efficiency.

The approach used is a statistical analysis of space performance indicators for space charging and other higher education institution (HEIs).

Approximately one‐quarter of HEIs in the UK operated space charging in 2000‐2001 but only ten out of 31 space‐related performance indicators for the period 1998‐2001 suggest that increased efficiency results. Scrutiny of the background data shows they predominantly reflect differences in institutional wealth and activities, rather than space use management. Efficiency measures relating space to use provide no evidence of efficiency gains, suggesting that the application of charging as a space management tool is ineffective.

The methodology does not reveal the reasons for the disparity between theory and results of space charging. Qualitative research into the application of charging systems is required to provide an explanation.

The conclusions are important for HE managers who are considering implementing expensive systems to improve space efficiency. The results also shed light on the usefulness of space performance indicators for HE estates.

Although there have been many assertions that space charging will improve space use efficiency in the HE sector, this research provides evidence to the contrary.

This paper aims to, using the concept of “modes of mediation”, examine how different roles for accountants are “made present” in an Egyptian manufacturing company. The paper introduces the notion of “modes of mediation” as a different perspective for the opposing popular archetypes of accountants: “bean-counter” versus “business partner”. Modes of mediation emphasise the materiality of artefacts, entities and technologies, as well as organisational space and spatial settings.

The paper draws on a field study in an Egyptian manufacturing company where accountants are engaged as business partners and involved in operations planning and decision-making. The data were collected over a period of four years through participant observation, interviews and ethnographic techniques.

The paper reveals the relational nature of accountants’ calculative agency and shows how roles of accountants are intimately associated with a web of technologies and artefacts, as well as spatial working arrangements that represent particular “modes of mediation”.

The concept of “modes of mediation”, which is still under-explored in the role change literature, is useful in studying the roles of accountants. It enriches our understanding of the wider involvement of accountants in business decision-making that goes beyond the major drivers of role change and deliberate interventions discussed in the existing literature.

The paper contributes to the literature on role change by drawing attention to the way in which different modes of mediation, involving certain material and spatial arrangements, enact different forms of calculative agency. Minor alteration to these arrangements can result in a wider involvement of accountants in business decision-making.

The purpose of this study is to report on the challenges and lessons learnt by the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when trying to implement a “resource in common” high‐density storage unit model between Texas A&M University Library and The University of Texas‐Austin Libraries.

The case study draws on the experience of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when the university funded the creation of a jointly owned remote storage unit, which foundation would rest on a “resource in common” model. The creation of a new library building allowed Texas A&M University Libraries to free up stack space in order to create new learning spaces to meet the needs of the library users. However, as the processing began, initial theories of what a “resource in common” was, how to implement a “resource in common” and resources needed to implement the “resource in common” model began to be questioned. This study examines the lessons learnt when trying to implement a “resource in common” model.

Based on the experiences of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team, increased communication and early participation in the decision‐making stages is key when trying to implement a “resource in common” model. This processing team was responsible for updating the MARC records for all the items that were identified to go to the joint storage unit. They recognized that any collaborative venture of this magnitude required an excellent workflow and workload understanding by all parties, including those members of the TAMU Library initial project planning team who were active members on the initial library storage facility oversight committees. This understanding would allow everyone at TAMU involved in the massive project to have a clearer knowledge of the strains caused by the increased workload and could communicate to the full team the obstacles the library would be facing.

This paper introduces the idea of “resource in common” and will be of interest to all libraries facing both space and funding shortages who might be considering building a storage unit. These libraries might consider implementing a “resource in common” model as a way to solve these problems.