‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Resource transfer (RT) analysis [Chapter 8]
Decision tools have not encompassed issues of democracy and distribution – the growing concentration 
of decision-making power and political influence. Planning analyses have been largely descriptive 
of existing conditions and general goals, and ignore transfers of wealth and resources over time.
When we look at ‘environmental injustice’ (eg the distribution of pollution), we usually ignore unjust 
enrichment. Again, inequitable control of land, space and resources will ultimately lead to the abuse 
of power. Constructive thinking, paradoxically, requires criticism and introspection. By exposing 
the transfers of land and resources that have occurred over time, the political momentum may be 
generated to reverse the increasing disparities of wealth. RT analysis would among other things:
•
Map cumulative wealth transfers, such as poor to rich, rural to urban, nature to development,
and future to present – rather than just aggregating negative impacts or diminishing stocks of 
resources [Boxes 52 and 53].
• 
Look at unjust enrichment, not just which groups benefit and which groups lose in relation to
each other. In the past, social impact analysis has tended not to look at internalities, and has 
focused on the poverty half the equation.
• 
Map de facto transfers of public spaces to negative space – the inappropriate conversion of
common areas to private corporate use and control (eg enclosure). Dead space offers
opportunities to increase the urban ecology and public estate.
Institutional design (ID) analysis [Chapter 9]
Inequitable resource transfers are inextricably linked with resource-allocation structures and 
processes. Despite statistics about the cumulative losses of natural capital, these losses are seldom 
traced through the resource-allocation processes and land-use systems that underlie them. They are 
seen instead as an inevitable by-product of any kind of progress. It can be pointless to fix problems 
if the initial causes remain. By tracing differentials of power, influence and resource flows to changes 
in legal and regulatory systems – and environmental management policies, regulations and incentives 
in particular – we may be able to invent corrective mechanisms.

An awareness of the failings of our 

current institutional systems can help us avoid repeating the familiar patterns of unilateral resource 
transfers. ID analysis would aim to ensure that:
•
Institutional mechanisms do not ‘expropriate’ previous rights or options (eg laws, regulations

---

261
The SmartMode Process
or processes that reduce rights or access to means of survival).
• 
Economic frameworks do not transfer wealth through inequitable 
externalities
(where costs
are transferred by private interests to the general public) or 
internalities
(where inordinate 
benefits are received by a few at the expense of the general public).
• 
Redistributive planning and design precepts do not have negative outcomes for the wider 
public. If there is no limit on resource acquisition (or at least what was once called
‘betterment’ in planning), disparities of wealth will increase.
• 
Market-based mechanisms are not used without considering the long-term consequences.
Price is currently the key driver of efficiency, but prices, thus far, have not reflected the true 
value of resources, and full cost pricing has been avoided.
• 
Technological conventions do not ‘intervene’ in natural systems and reduce natural capital,
life-support systems and eco-services. Past forms of industrial technology have not been 
efficient from a whole systems (ie ecological) view.
Citizen bioregional mapping exercises can be useful in identifying the significant historical origins 
of negative resource transfers and fostering understanding of the causes of interventions in natural 
systems through human-designed infrastructure and institutions.