Leshinsky, R (2016) Touching on transparency in city local law making: Experiences from waking up each day in city of Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 8(3), pp. 194-209. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose The purpose for this paper is to share jurisdictional knowledge on local law-making theory and praxis, an area of law not well represented in the literature despite its involvement in day-to-day life. Design/methodology/approach The paper not only shares knowledge about the local law-making process in Melbourne, Australia, but also explores attitudes to local law-making gathered through semi-structured interviews from a sample of relevant stakeholders. Findings The paper reports on findings from a study undertaken in Melbourne, Australia. Stakeholder perceptions and attitudes were canvassed regarding local law-making in the areas of land use planning and waste management. Overall, stakeholders were satisfied that Melbourne is a robust jurisdiction offering a fair and transparent local law-making system, but they see scope for more public participation. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that even though the state of Victoria offers a fair and transparent system of local law-making, there is still significant scope for more meaningful involvement from the community, as well as space for more effective enforcement of local laws. The stage is set for greater cross-jurisdictional reciprocal learning about local law-making between cities. Originality/value This paper offers meaningful and utilitarian insight for policy and law makers, academics and built environment professionals from relevant stakeholders on the operation and transparency of local law-making.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | law; community; engagement; enforcement; local; making |
| Index terms: | methodology, waste management, public participation, interview, jurisdiction, built environment, enforcement, praxis, transparency, land use planning, Victoria, Australia |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, reflexivity, Geography, health safety and environment, professional development, urban design, research methods, participation process, legal systems, regions and continents, waste management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Urban Studies, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here