IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v43y2011i1p185-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Swiss Civic Corporations in Land-Use Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-David Gerber

    (Institute of Land Use Policies and Human Environment (IPTEH), University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)

  • Stéphane Nahrath
  • Patrick Csikos
  • Peter Knoepfel

    (Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (IDHEAP), University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland)

Abstract

Public authorities in charge of managing public real-estate assets at the local level face conflicting interests. In Switzerland, short-term solutions often prevail. This paper looks at another group of actors which are characterized by their long-term real-estate management strategies: civic corporations. In Switzerland old civic corporations, which share many characteristics with common pool resource (CPR) institutions, are large landowners, some of them very powerful, which seem to have been successful in the management of their assets over centuries. The objective of this paper is to address the role played today by large urban civic corporations in the implementation process of land-use planning policies, as well as to understand the conditions of their perpetuation within the complex policy framework characterizing Swiss and European welfare states. This research examines the real-estate strategy of the civic corporations of Bern and Chur—ie their choice to buy, sell, or lease parcels of land depending on their location—in order to highlight their complex relationship with local authorities in charge of land-use planning. We show that CPR institutions such as civic corporations must not be dismissed too quickly as relicts of the past: quite the reverse, their strategies gain a renewed significance in a time when public bodies are looking for new ways to improve the sustainability of their spatial footprint and incorporate long-term thinking in their management objectives. More concretely, we show that their significance within land-use planning processes depends on their capacity to complement local authorities through the mobilization of their real-estate assets in order to support the implementation of land-use and urban planning policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-David Gerber & Stéphane Nahrath & Patrick Csikos & Peter Knoepfel, 2011. "The Role of Swiss Civic Corporations in Land-Use Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(1), pages 185-204, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:43:y:2011:i:1:p:185-204
    DOI: 10.1068/a43293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a43293
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a43293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Adams & Alan Disberry & Norman Hutchison & Thomas Munjoma, 2001. "Ownership Constraints to Brownfield Redevelopment," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 453-477, March.
    2. James McCarthy, 2005. "Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(6), pages 995-1014, June.
    3. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    4. Stevenson,Glenn G., 1991. "Common Property Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521384414, November.
    5. L Luithlen, 1997. "Landownership in Britain and the Quest for Town Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(8), pages 1399-1418, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheung, K.S. & Wong, S.K. & Wu, H. & Yiu, C.Y., 2021. "The land governance cost on co-ownership: A study of the cross-lease in New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Jongwook Kim & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2002. "Resource-based and property rights perspectives on value creation: the case of oil field unitization," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 225-245.
    3. Martin YELKOUNI, 2004. "Gestion communautaire et forêt de Tiogo au Burkina Faso," Working Papers 200415, CERDI.
    4. Gwendoline Promsopha, 2018. "Risk†Coping, Land Tenure And Land Markets: An Overview Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 176-193, February.
    5. Kebede, Yohannes, 1993. "The Limits to Common Resource Management: The Bypassed Commons or Commons without Tragedy," MPRA Paper 662, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 1993.
    6. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    7. David Aubin & Frédéric Varone, 2013. "Getting Access to Water: Property Rights or Public Policy Strategies?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(1), pages 154-167, February.
    8. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    9. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    10. Rémy Herrera & Poeura Tetoe, 2013. "The Papua Niugini Paradox. Land property archaism and Modernity of peasant resistance ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00786274, HAL.
    11. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    12. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    13. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    14. Rout, S., 2008. "Institutional and policy reforms in water sector in India: review of issues, concepts and trends," Conference Papers h042926, International Water Management Institute.
    15. Habibullah Magsi & Andre Torr & Yansui Liu & M. Javed Sheikh, 2017. "Land Use Conflicts in the Developing Countries: Proximate Driving Forces and Preventive Measures," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 19-30.
    16. MAREK HUDON & BENJAMIN HUYBRECHTS & Anaïs PÉRILLEUX & Marthe NYSSENS, 2017. "Understanding Cooperative Finance As A New Common," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 155-177, June.
    17. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    18. Julienne Brabet & Corinne Vercher- Chaptal & Lucy Taska, 2020. "From oligopolistic digital platforms to Open/Cooperative Ones?," Post-Print hal-03201454, HAL.
    19. Allendorf, Keera, 2007. "Do Women's Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1975-1988, November.
    20. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:43:y:2011:i:1:p:185-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.