Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBall, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorBrockie, Emily
dc.contributor.authorCaldwell, Wayne J.
dc.contributor.authorMarks, Joanne
dc.contributor.authorNelson, Mike
dc.contributor.authorParsons, Jay
dc.contributor.authorRudy, Harold
dc.contributor.authorStonehouse, Shawna
dc.contributor.authorWeber, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorWeir, Claire
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Melanie
dc.coverage.spatialPennsylvania, United States, http://sws.geonames.org/6254927/ ; Ontario, Canada, http://sws.geonames.org/6093943/en
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-05T21:49:40Z
dc.date.available2018-02-05T21:49:40Z
dc.date.issued2002
dc.identifier.citationBall, J., Brockie, E., Caldwell, W., Marks, J., Nelson, M., Parson, J. ... Williams, M. (2002). Reflections on planning: Pennsylvania vs. Ontario. Plan Canada, 42(2), 30-33.en
dc.identifier.issn0032-0544
dc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.25316/IR-410
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10613/5462
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25316/IR-410
dc.description.abstractThis article compares a number of rural planning issues and approaches in Pennsylvania and Ontario. The discussion focuses on issues related to the preservation of agricultural lands, urban growth boundaries, property rights, and the role of local and state/ provincial government. In Pennsylvania, extensive citizen involvement has led to a high level of public "ownership" of planning. Planning in Pennsylvania has also made significant progress in the use of voluntary programs and finan cial incentives, such as the purchase of development rights to protect agricultural lands. Compared with Ontario, however, the use of planning regulations in rural areas has been less successful, providing much less coordination of these regulations at the local, county and state levels.en
dc.description.abstractCet article compare les approches et pratiques en matière d'urbanisme rural entre la Pennsylvanie et l'Ontario. Le sujet met de l'avant les questions relatives à la préservation des terres agricoles, aux limites de la croissance urbaine, aux droits de propriété ainsi que le rôle des autorités locales, et de l'État au du Gouvernement provincial. En Pennsylvanie, l'engagement de la population a abouti sur une véritable appropriation de l'urbanisme par le public, et des progrès importants ont été faits en matière d'initiatives et de mesures incitatives afin de protéger le territoire agricole. Par contre l'utilisation des règlements d'urbanisme en matière rurale a connu moins de succès qu'en Ontario en raison d'une plus faible coordination de ces règlements aux niveaux locaux, de comtés et de l'état.fr
dc.format.extent2 pg.en
dc.format.mediumtexten
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCanadian Institute of Plannersen
dc.relation.isbasedonThis article is based on observations made during a May 2001 field trip to Pennsylvania led by Prof. Wayne Caldwell. All authors other than Prof. Caldwell are enrolled in the master's program at the University of Guelph School of Rural Planning and Development.en
dc.subject.lcshCity planning--Ontarioen
dc.subject.lcshCity planning--Pennsylvaniaen
dc.subject.lcshCity planning--Citizen participationen
dc.subject.lcshAgriculture and state--Pennsylvaniaen
dc.titleReflections on planning: Pennsylvania vs. Ontarioen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.noteAbstract in English and French; text in Englishen
dc.description.fulltexthttps://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/5462/Article009.pdf?sequence=3en
dc.identifier.doi10.25316/IR-410


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record