Academic journal article Journal of the Community Development Society

Editor's Comments

Academic journal article Journal of the Community Development Society

Editor's Comments

Article excerpt

With the publication of Volume 32 (Nos. 1 & 2), I will complete my term as editor. Dr. Ted Bradshaw, University of California-Davis, has been appointed editor and will assume responsibility for the Journal beginning with Volume 33. To facilitate a smooth and seamless transfer to Ted, we are requesting that all new manuscripts be forwarded to him at the following address:

Ted Bradshaw

University of California-Davis

Human & Community Development Department

Davis, CA 95616

916-754-9161 (phone)

916-752-5660 (fax) (email)

This issue of the Journal features a series of papers that dovetail nicely. The lead article contains a report on an informative and novel study of common property rights. Pereira's findings raise important questions about the role of group heterogeneity on collective action. In the next paper, Daniels provides a timely and cogent review of "Smart Growth" tools. His paper points to the need for building local community capacity so as to properly use these tools. Next, Zollinger and Krannich review a range of agricultural land preservation initiatives. Through interviews and surveys they find the greatest support for tax relief programs but indicate that purchase of development rights programs holds much promise if proper information about such programs is made available to the public. The Bridger et al. study reports on the persistence and change that has occurred in the Amish community of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania over the past fifty years. To accomplish this the authors use secondary data, narrative analysis, and the results of key informant interviews and household surveys. Webster and Chappelle report on the use of a combined-development center approach to capitalize on the rapidly growing area of tourism-related community development. Their findings provide insight into the processes communities can use to assess their prospects for undertaking such an approach. This paper is followed by an analysis of three commonly used fiscal impact approaches. Edwards reports that the choice of method significantly affects final outcomes. Leistritz and Sell report on the socioeconomic impacts of new agricultural processing plants in rural communities. Using in-depth interviews and a survey of residents in communities containing such plants, they suggest that there were many more positive impacts than negative ones. Finally, Fesenmaier and Contractor explore how a knowledge development network tool can be used effectively with community development practitioners. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.