able planning practice, particularly sustainable ‘urban growth management’ prac-
tice (chapter 5). The signposts put up are large, clear and simple: each of the com-
ponents in the listing deserving attention from the other writings noted in this
review.
For the urban-living populations of the Anglo New World, but also for most of
the OECD hegemony, coping with the ‘ever-changing big picture’ (box 3.1) comes
down mainly to a matter of establishing a ‘rural and urban’ pattern of co-
dependency along the lines indicated within the ‘regional’ column in the box 3.7
Matrix(chapter 3). In short, there is a need for federal-to-regional guidelines as
well as regional-to-local guidance.
The seven paradigms reviewed in this passage exert inter-paradigmatic
synergy one upon the other – reflecting a sustainable enlightenment.
‘Ownerships’ and ‘rights’ (introduced on page 16)
Historical shifts alter our perception of the ‘ownership of resources’ and ‘rights of
use’ privileges relative to landscapes and waterscapes. These are significant and
determining factors within growth pattern management. This comes home to an
individual when a treasured open landscape in which they hold a community or
personal ‘interest’, but not a property ‘right’, becomes cluttered with signage, hill-
top shack constructions, exotic plantation forestry and abandoned consumer
durables (particularly old motor vehicles), or gets plundered for its mineral or
indigenous forest resources. These kinds of change come about because most
open-area landscape activities in the New World are either un-regulated, or come
under loose control, not only with regard to land usage but also with regard to
the introduction of flora and fauna infestations and downstream-downwind pol-
lution drift.
Underlying these open-area incursions is a division of the rural
resource estate into its fee-simple freehold, conservancy com-
monhold, public land statehold and indigenous peoples (cognatic
tenure) categories, which in turn become subject to interlevenings
identifiable from the wider community – generally aesthetic,
sometimes spiritual – ‘ownerships’, ‘interests’ and ‘rights’. A case
for growth pattern management policy and practice centres
around the extent to which there is, or can be fashioned, a partial
or controlling right to intervene in the management and enjoy-
ment of those landscapes by the wider community, even though
they are not of the public domain. As evidence, the widespread
fudging of locked-on planning throughout the quasi-urban tracts
beyond suburbia mocks most formal growth pattern manage-
ment efforts.
Responsible open-area resource utilization is a matter of good land-use man-
agement pursued for a societal purpose. That purpose includes the primary pro-
duction of food, water and fibre for the maintenance of human life. A secondary
purpose includes the urban-recreational activities located in open area landscapes:
Growth Pattern Management 151Adjacent rural and
urban locations are
interdependent, yet each
stands apart from the
other functionally. This is
clearly evident with
post-World War II
British planning which
compartmentalized the
urban and rural
environments: indeed
planning for urban areas,
and non-planning the
‘white’ (on plan) rural
areas.