Tracing the effectiveness of land use regulation: The case of heritage protection measures, flexibility, and adaptations

The effectiveness of real estate and land use regulation is hard to measure because of the variety of contexts, as well as the many factors that affect the ability of regulation to achieve its outcomes. Nonetheless, one can still look at regulation and evaluate its effectiveness through a variety of methods. In this study, we examine heritage regulation in Oregon (USA), Israel, and England and compare its effectiveness by examining built-heritage conflicts. The arena for this study is appeal tribunals in the three jurisdictions, where heritage conflicts are frequently debated. The proposed framework for analysis defines several independent variables: the existence of built-heritage regulation and conflicts, heritage-related appeals, and institutional setting that allows for local heritage decisions. The analysis also defines one major dependent variable, the outcome of appeals, and specifically whether the conflict resulted in changes to the historic property. I suggest that flexibility and changes in the historic environment correspond with a more effective policy. In the context of this research, heritage regulation is considered effective when it has the ability to facilitate change, flexibility, and adaptation. The findings suggest that while all three systems accommodate flexibility and change, in some jurisdictions, decision-makers interpret heritage regulation more broadly by allowing more change in the historic fabric. This approach indicates that in some jurisdictions, heritage regulations are more effective than in others.