ABSTRACT
One o f the objectives of this book (see Chapter 1) was to present a range of case studies of rural land-use planning in different nations. In so doing, some of the parochialism which has beset the understanding of planning and policy-making in this sector may prove slightly less of a barrier. It is also important, however, that strands of comparison and contrast be brought out of these national case studies. Perhaps the most immediate impression of the different accounts of rural land-use planning presented here is the sheer diversity of locations, problems, mechanisms and outcomes. Nevertheless, by stripping away the fagade of locality, crucially important though that is in many instances, insights can be gained of more structural issues which underpin problems, policies and planning in many of the nations discussed. The difficulties of such fundamental comparisons should not be
underestimated. Obvious geographical factors such as the diversity of scale, climate and terrain, as well as the political differences between federal states and smaller nation states, will ali lay serious claim to the explanation o f rural land-use change and the response of planners and policy-makers at different levels (Cloke 1988). MacDonald sees Australia, for example, as dominated by a colonial past, a remote location and low rainfall, and there would be a legitimate expectation that these phenomena will influence the form of planning involved. Furthermore, Canada’s 7.5% of rural land in agriculture contrasts markedly with the situation in smaller European states such as the UK, the Netherlands and West Germany; and the oriental rice economy in Japan has distinct rural land-use characteristics compared with Occidental rural economies.
