The importance of the planning process. A comparative analysis of two major development projects in New Zealand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The research undertaken analysed public involvement in and contribution to development projects that have occurred in the city centre of post-earthquake Christchurch and the Waitematā Harbourfront in Auckland. The aim of the research was to analyse differences in public perceptions of the Auckland and Christchurch based projects and to explore how the public make use of such developments. This was done to assess how public participation affects the public’s view of development projects and to establish whether increasing citizen power within the development and planning process leads to greater levels of public approval of development projects. The research included a comparative analysis of the Viaduct Basin/Wynyard Quarter developments in Auckland and the Anchor Projects developed in the post 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The research is significant in that it recognizes the importance of public participation within the planning process, with the research highlighting how such participation affects development projects.\nData was collected from key informant interviews, surveys, a policy document analysis, and a submission and hearing analysis. The research data showed the role the public play in the development process in New Zealand, and how the differences in the processes undertaken impacted the relevant projects. Key informants highlighted the importance of establishing and maintaining an ongoing engagement process with key stakeholders, with the long-term nature of both developments leading to such relationships producing meaningful results. It is important to note that the ongoing engagement in both projects was with landowners and developers rather than the public, who primarily were involved during large-scale engagement hearings and meetings prior to the development of the Waterfront and Blueprint Plans. The primary difference between Auckland and Christchurch was the lack of a notification process being undertaken in the latter. This was a loss of opportunity for members of the public to engage with the planning process, and instead groups such as Gap Filler engaged with disenfranchised groups to address issues surrounding redevelop and land use. Survey results from the public show a similar approval rating of developments in both Auckland and Christchurch, indicating that the loss of a notification process did not impact the public’s opinion to a high degree, likely because the Christchurch earthquake process was seen to an extraordinary event. Overall, however, the research found that the public are more willing to accept decisions that are made regarding projects if they believe that the input they provide can meaningfully impact decisions that are made in the development process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».