Science-Based Planning (12/02/02)

1. In your planning practice, what does "science-based planning"
mean? Is it solely related to "critical area protection"? Does it always
refer to the "natural sciences" or could it also include the "social
sciences"? Is it the same as the "best available science"?
[ response ]

2. In your experience, how does the public (including politicians)
embrace the concept and its implications? This issue can be
controversial. For example, in Southern California, planners have tried
to implement a plan called "Toilet-to-Tap." It has been demonstrated
beyond doubt that tertiary treatment of sewage water makes it safer than
bottled drinking water. Some planners and water resource agencies are in
favor, but many consumers and politicians react otherwise: "Lips that
touch reclaimed watermust never touch mine." (Mayor of Los Angeles,
James Hahn, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Dec 1, 2002). Can science
dictate urban planning and policy? If so, to what extent?
[ response ]

3. Scientific knowledge is always bounded by "uncertainty." Is
scientific uncertainty always problematic in agency decision-making, or
can scientific uncertainty play sometimes in the planner's favor?
[ response ]

4. Is the adjective in "science-based planning" redundant? In other
words, what do you think is implied by "non-science-based planning"?
[ response ]

5. What are the implications of adopting "science-based planning" for
participatory, community and bottom-up planning? Is not science-based
information merely one of many inputs to be accommodated in the planning
process?
[ response ]

 

Robert Foxworthy
King County
My experience with "science-based planning" has been limited to the
development of critical areas ordinances and meeting the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act with related policy guidance. I have attempted to
expand the role of science-based decision making to other areas,
particularly to transportation facilities (roads) planning, where roads and
related facilities may have a substantial impact on the natural environment
and on aquatic habitats. This is currently cutting-edge planning,
particularly for corridor-type project planning. I have not run across
social science-based planning sorts of efforts, however.

The mandate that jurisdictions use "best available science" under federal
and other regulations is the means by which any such planning would see the
light of day. When push comes to shove multiple demands tend to drive a more
balanced policy. Interestingly, if the best available science mandate is
respected, then there would be no balance. Policy (and project design)would
be total driven by the needs of biological ecology. Ecology may not be able
to make the sorts of predictions necessary to formulate policy in the first
place, however, so it's a bit of a conundrum.

Richard Carson
Clark County
I have heard of it.

Anonymous
First of all, I must say that I just don't hear the term "science-based
planning," per se, in practice - and most everyone rolls their eyes
anymore when they hear "best available science" because it's
frustratingly fluid! Yes, I think generally that the word "science"
tends to be associated only with "hard" sciences such as biology. As
urban planning is, in itself, a subset of social science, I think it
would be redundant to use the term science as applied to the other
parts. I would say that science-based planning is related to best
available science, in that it relies upon it for policy guidance.

Paul Krauss
City of Auburn
Science Based Planning covers a broad range or topics were
actions are based upon scientific or engineering analysis. It presumes that
there is always a correct answer and that a broad range of professionals in
various disciplines will arrive at the one and only valid conclusion.

Critical Areas planning has been a focus because of mandates that we use the
Best Available Science to arrive at decisions. But traffic analysis, demand
models for fire and police service, design and layout of utilities, are no
less scientific. They are just less controversial in that their "science"
is more widely accepted and agreed upon.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
I probably need to preface my comments, as I have a biology-natural resource undergraduate and a Masters in Urban Planning. I am one of the first generation of planners who combined these. It is more integrated or common place in the last 20 years. I think it was an excellent choice because I have had a really varied career - more so than most and I have been able to be on the forefront of so many planning and environmental issues ie. Shorelines, water reuse and conservation, energy conservation and reuse, alternative energy, zoning based on soil capacity, open space planning and natural storm water retention, low-impact development, urban centers, as well as social needs.

Meaning and Use of Science-based planning: It is only being applied to critical areas - steep slopes, wetlands, streams and shorelines. Shorelines(SMP) need a Technical Appendix - not referred to as BAS. This is a combination of biology, geology & natural resources. Buildable lands is creating its own BAS as it is being developed so yes, I'd say social sciences will also be influenced by this.

Eric Shields
City of Kirkland
I honestly don't use the term "science-based planning" in my practice. The meaning
I would infer would relate to the physical sciences and would be similar
to "best available science". In other words, make decisions based on
the most current scientific or technical information.

Brian Smith
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments
Woodland is just now getting the "best available science" criteria into
documents. I am writing a new critical areas ordinance and that is the
first document to have any mention of it. We are steadily updating but it
takes time. So far, the planning commission understands that things are
simply required and this helps make the transition to such thinking a lot
easier. Plus, I know how to "sell" stuff like this so it sounds like a
good idea.

2. In your experience, how does the public (including politicians)
embrace the concept and its implications? This issue can be
controversial. For example, in Southern California, planners have tried
to implement a plan called "Toilet-to-Tap." It has been demonstrated
beyond doubt that tertiary treatment of sewage water makes it safer than
bottled drinking water. Some planners and water resource agencies are in
favor, but many consumers and politicians react otherwise: "Lips that
touch reclaimed watermust never touch mine." (Mayor of Los Angeles,
James Hahn, quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Dec 1, 2002). Can science
dictate urban planning and policy? If so, to what extent?

Robert Foxworthy
King County
The public does not care about biological ecology at this moment in time.
They want a "clean environment," but they want to be able to drive a car and
build a house wherever they chose, as well. Few people are interested in
managing the natural environment (e.g., maintaining natural vegetative
easements), and they certainly aren't willing to pay substantially for
someone else to manage it. We've asked them in our countywide planning
efforts. Ecology, as a complex science with limited ability to predict
outcomes, is not popular politically when people are struggling to maintain
basic infrastructure and meet human services needs. Ecological
sustainability remains an abstraction, and few understand the linkage
between long-term quality of life and natural systems at an emotional level
despite decades of rhetoric.

Richard Carson
Clark County
This is a silly idea and unmarketable.

Anonymous
There are a lot of examples where science dictates some portions of
urban planning and policy - again, mostly related to the hard sciences.
I think your example is a good answer itself to the "to what extent"
question! People don't want to be grossed out by the product. (In
fact, I drink bottled water frequently and had an "eeewww" reaction when
I read this!) More seriously, people won't back something they can't
understand. Almost anyone would know what "Toilet-to-Tap" means, or if
not they could probably figure it out without too much trouble, as
opposed to highly esoteric scientific principles. That's where we lose
both the public and the politicians. This is especially the case in
smaller and more rural jurisdictions, where there's less likely to be
highly specialized technical staff or public information staff versed in
"translating" complex policies to the public, and non-professional
politicians (that isn't to say UNprofessional - just that they're
likely to, say, run the local restaurant by day!) At the same time, it
seems probable these same jurisdictions are disproportionately those
that rely on natural products industries to sustain their local
economies. See how far you get explaining, as a policy basis, the
scientific principles associated with selective forestry to a displaced
logger!

Paul Krauss
City of Auburn
The public, politicians, environmentalists, etc., like to
believe that there is "scientific conclusion" for just about everything.
The scientists and engineers like to believe that demonstrating the efficacy
of their particular agenda is sufficient on it's own to sell an idea w/o
having to interface with the often very messy, public decision process.

Both notions are wrong. Science is a wonderful tool to aid in decision
making. But the answer is not always clear nor it is always acceptable to
the public or electeds. Your example on reuse of gray water is a good one.
Another would be to ask a room full of biologists what the proper setback
should be from a creek to protect it's environmental functions. I can
guarantee you the answers will range from a nothing since their is no
problem to a heavily planted 20' buffer to 200' to anything more than 15%
development in a watershed will render it impossible to support salmon runs.
The reason I can guarantee this would occur is that it is already documented
in literature and public debate.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
Embracing technical information: Having worked on one of the first tertiary treatment plants and one of the first EISs under NEPA in Denver in 1971, it is clear that technology can outstrip acceptance on many issues. But it does not mean we shouldn't take the first step to recycle wastewater to industrial users, etc. Think "toilet-to-toilet paper; toilet-to-lawn; toilet to trees; or toilet to fish".

Eric Shields
City of Kirkland
Science can have a major impact on planning and policy, but only if it is accepted by
the public. Policy is made by officials who directly or indirectly serve
at the will of the voters. Even when a decision is made on the basis of
scientific findings, it may be slow to be accepted by the public. One
example that comes to mind has to do with Cell Towers. Federal law
restricts local siting decisions of these facilities by saying that the
alleged negative health effects of electromagnetic radiation from the
facilities can not be used as the basis for denying them. This
limitation was established after a finding that the electromagnetic
fields are not a health risk. Even so, it is a common complaint by
citizens at public hearings and they are often outraged that local
governements ignore this concern (as they are required to do by the
federal regulations).

Brian Smith
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments
The California "toilet to tap" is unfortunately named. As a person who
knows human nature pretty well, I can see that the name itself is probably
a major wall to progress. Planners should be required to take marketing classes.

Robert Foxworthy
King County
The public does not care about biological ecology at this moment in time.
They want a "clean environment," but they want to be able to drive a car and
build a house wherever they chose, as well. Few people are interested in
managing the natural environment (e.g., maintaining natural vegetative
easements), and they certainly aren't willing to pay substantially for
someone else to manage it. We've asked them in our countywide planning
efforts. Ecology, as a complex science with limited ability to predict
outcomes, is not popular politically when people are struggling to maintain
basic infrastructure and meet human services needs. Ecological
sustainability remains an abstraction, and few understand the linkage
between long-term quality of life and natural systems at an emotional level
despite decades of rhetoric.

Richard Carson
Clark County
Uncertainty always plays in the planners favor. It's the developer who is
wants certainty.

Anonymous
There are a lot of examples where science dictates some portions of
urban planning and policy - again, mostly related to the hard sciences.
I think your example is a good answer itself to the "to what extent"
question! People don't want to be grossed out by the product. (In
fact, I drink bottled water frequently and had an "eeewww" reaction when
I read this!) More seriously, people won't back something they can't
understand. Almost anyone would know what "Toilet-to-Tap" means, or if
not they could probably figure it out without too much trouble, as
opposed to highly esoteric scientific principles. That's where we lose
both the public and the politicians. This is especially the case in
smaller and more rural jurisdictions, where there's less likely to be
highly specialized technical staff or public information staff versed in
"translating" complex policies to the public, and non-professional
politicians (that isn't to say UNprofessional - just that they're
likely to, say, run the local restaurant by day!) At the same time, it
seems probable these same jurisdictions are disproportionately those
that rely on natural products industries to sustain their local
economies. See how far you get explaining, as a policy basis, the
scientific principles associated with selective forestry to a displaced
logger!

Paul Krauss
City of Auburn
I believe that the level of uncertainty which usually must be
acknowledged, empowers a planner to work with the data, work with their
knowledge of a community and ability to handle a public decision-making
process, to craft a better or at least workable solution. Scientific
certainty that yields an untenable solution is pretty worthless.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
Uncertainty: There will always be uncertainty. That is why I advocate phasing or small increments or explain the range of change that could be considered and then point to where it appears we can gain consensus. This is usually in the mid-range area, so it is not as scary as going all the way with a lot of change.

Eric Shields
City of Kirkland
It is problematic if the nature of the issue is one that needs scientific
knowledge to support it. Regulations protecting streams and wetlands are
an example. The more the scientific research supports a common approach
to protecting water quality and habitat the easier it is to implement
local regulations. When scientific experts disagree, there is more room
for debate and more room for personal values to influence the decision.

Robert Foxworthy
King County
There is an amazing amount of non-science-based planning! But first,
lets be honest about planning. Policy and decision-making are often not
based on planning (whether it includes science or not). This is unfortunate,
but a reality for our profession. Policy will always have to balance
competing demands, and so many personal and political issues weigh in. In
addition, planners are often misunderstood or "in-the-way" when it comes
time to decide one way or another. Our work needs to recognize this
limitation.

Richard Carson
Clark County
We are doing non-science based planning everyday

Anonymous
I touched on this in my answer to #1 above. However, I'd contend that a
lot of the public believes planning is, by its nature, non-science
based! I've been lectured more times than I care to count a'la we're
just on a power trip. When people are angry they aren't willing to look
at whether science is involved, one way or another.

Paul Krauss
City of Auburn
The answer is that it is redundant. The implication is that
normal planning decision making is some sort of voodoo when in fact planners
have professional education and lifelong learning at their disposal.
Planning is a science, albeit a softer one than that used to forecast the
size of a sewer pipe.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
Is science-based planning redundant? Yes, it is redundant. The really good planners have always based planning on scientific information. We are very good at taking concepts and explaining them in common everyday language using graphics and data to explain points. We try to help residents and elected officials understand tough issues and trade-offs. We are also good at integrating a lot of information from disparate disciplines and synthesizing scientific knowledge/research into new concepts and figuring out how to implement them.

Eric Shields
City of Kirkland
I really don't have any thoughts on this.

Robert Foxworthy
King County
Our work requires that we seek to recognize competing demands and
recommend a appropriate courses of action. In our work, science has the
potential to help solve many sustainability issues, but it also has the
potential for authoritarianism. If we go with strictly ecology, then
ecologists decide...that's that. As a planner, I would prefer to have a more
balanced option that incorporates science and an educated public process.
Planners understanding ecology and ecological principles is good place to
start. Public education will be a must. Decision-maker education should be a
focused effort!

Hope this helps. I'll be happy to discuss.

Richard Carson
Clark County
No implications. You should be talking about "best available
science." Now that's a hot issue.

Anonymous
If we're going to work a policy from a standpoint of answering a
scientific concern, then I strongly believe we must be prepared to
translate that to the public in understandable terms. The best example
I can give is one Gino Lucchetti, a biologist (and, as I recall,
hobbyist opera singer) who, the last I knew, was with KC-Metro. This
man is a wonder! He can explain the intricasies of watershed planning
in such an approachable manner that even the least schooled person could
understand. I was totally awed by this ability and still remember a
presentation of his I attended years ago. We all need to develop skills
like this - and let me be VERY clear, I do NOT mean talking down to
people! They know when you're treating them as if they're stupid, and
they'll respond and not in the way you want them to. No, what I mean is
the skill of translating complex, highly scientific ideas into
understandable terms.

This is, of course, geared toward the hard sciences. As far as, for
instance, the computer modeling we use in projecting various things
involved in our work, I agree that it's an input - and it's ONLY an
input. If we try to base all our planning decisions on whatever we
define as our "scientific basis," then we lose the whole qualitative end
of things - like how do people feel about their community, what kind of
community do they want to live in, etc. At the same time, if you get
too "warm & fuzzy" then you lose the scientific end; a good case for
striving for the middle ground, and therefore a balanced, rational
policy approach.

Paul Krauss
City of Auburn
I think you answered the question yourself in the second
sentence. Community groups, electeds and the public, depend on planners for
input and guidance. They may at times misuse the information or come up
with an irrational conclusion (as far as the science is concerned) but last
I heard the Flat Earth Society has a relatively small membership.

Heather McCartney
City of Mukilteo
Implications for participatory planning and science as one of the inputs? Yes. That is why I have always listened to citizens' observations about how things are changing or are different. They also have thought about why this is happening and have an opinion about how to fix it. Planners can capture that information and help to make changes if needed. That is why community-based planning really works - your taking information and defining solutions that they can accept - because they gave them to you.

Eric Shields
City of Kirkland
Yes, science based information is just one input. Science should be a more important factor in some issues than others, but whether it is given the weight you or I might think it deserves is ultimately up
to the body politic.