This paper discusses two approaches of planning processes - 'Transactive Planning Process' and 'Incremental Planning Process' in resolving environmental planning issues. This is achieved by evaluating two case studies. The Don River watershed regeneration project case study and The Hillsborough County Solid Waste Site Selection Controversy project have been chosen such that they can clearly illustrate the differences in the planning processes of the two paradigms.
The former case study uses transactive planning process and the later case study uses incremental planning process. Central to the discussion of the first case study is the regeneration and restoring river's watershed to health and formation of task force involving the citizens in the planning process. By doing so it uses processed knowledge and the experience of the users in decision making process. In this case study all the stake holders have given importance in the planning process.
Hillsborough County Solid Waste Site Selection Controversy case study uses the science of muddling through. Hillsborough County Planning Commission (H.C.P.C) initially chooses to use Taylor road site as their landfill for a short period(4yrs) then because of the opposition from the Taylor road residents, the commission shifts to Sydney mine site. However, when the Brandon residents strongly protested the potential choice of Sydney mine site, H.C.P.C looks for some other alternatives. Before discussing the case studies, which use two contrasting planning processes, we should first discuss the two planning paradigms.
DISCUSSION OF TWO PARADIGMS:
TRANSACTIVE PLANNING:
Transactive planning has been developed by John Friedmann in 1973. Friedman defined it as "a style applicable to both allocative and innovative planning in which the processes of mutual learning are closely integrated with an organized capacity and willingness to act". Although transactive planning incorporates the aspects of traditional planning process, its main concern involves a restructuring of the basic relationship between the planner and the client. Transactive planning is a client driven process - a process in which the planner and the client would work with mutual understanding of each others requirements and each others willingness to share their knowledge befitting the issue in concern. Transactive planning uses centralized decision making process to solve social problems and includes the impacted (i.e., the citizens). In a sense, the planner and citizen work as partners in developing actions to solve problems. Small working groups of citizens form the basis of transactive planning process. These groups encourage face-to-face communication and dialogue. These working groups' participants share their intimate knowledge and experiences with the planner, who shares the technical planning models and systematic ways of data manipulation with the citizens and this process leads to mutual learning.
In this process planners would only be their technical supports, negotiators and communicators.
Transactive planning recognizes the benefits of public involvement. Communication gaps between planner and client can be closed by developing a continuing series of personal or face-to-face interactions. The communication gap is overcome by employing various strategies of interactive public involvement in the planning process.
One of the important concepts of the Transactive planning is societal guidance. This concept is based on the premise that action within society is linked to all levels and many different groups. Each of these groups has limited opportunity to influence the direction of society through action and active participation. Transactive planning implies that we must find a way to join scientific and technical intelligence with personal knowledge at the critical points of social intervention. Both the personal knowledge of the citizen participant and the technical knowledge held by the planner are limited in its ability to form an exclusive basis for societal guidance.
In transactive planning, the citizen participant is viewed not only--as--having expertise about the subject matter, but also as an individual who has the capacity to act rationally, within the context of a working group.
In transactive planning process planners contribute processed knowledge like, concepts, theory, analysis, systematic search procedures etc. and clients contribute intimate knowledge of context, realistic alternatives, priorities, feasibility judgments etc.
Transactive style can be summarized as follows:
The communication gap
Roles and personalities
Linkage of knowledge and action: planners and their clients have different practices
Processed knowledge against experience
Planners relate primarily to their profession, clients to their experience
The life dialogue
Relationship grounded in the authenticity of the person
Thinking, moral judgment, feeling and empathy are fused in authentic acts of being
Total communication with gestures and other forms of expression
Conflict is accepted
Dialogue unfolds in real time
The process of mutual learning
From teaching and learning to mutual learning. As a result of contact and dialogue.
INCREMENTAL PLANNING THEORY:
Rational comprehensive model while still theoretically the most developed, receives greater criticism. By the end of the 1960's the limitations of RCP were evident. "It was not a rational activity governed by experts using scientific knowledge but an irrational process dominated by petty political concerns "(Gunton). In spite of planners' best efforts, environmental degradation and loss of historic buildings revealed problems with RCP (Wolfe, Perks & Jamieson). As well, planning came to be perceived as a political process. Under these conditions, the relationship between planners and the community changed dramatically. Incremental and Transactive planning are the two alternatives put forward. The Incrementalist approach was one response to the challenge of the 1960s.
This is the theory of Charles Lindblom, which he described as "partisan mutual adjustment" or disjointed incrementalism. Developed as an alternative to RCP, this theory claims that public policy is actually accomplished through decentralized bargaining in a free market and a democratic political economy. In this model, plans are not constructed by a strict process but by a series of consultations largely based on peoples' actual experiences (Hudson). Large decisions are divided into smaller ones and distributed among a large number of actors who make decisions independently, each pursuing their separate interests, (Friedmann, 129) and form alliances to get support for their goals. According to the Incremental Planning model, this process brings out the public interest (Gunton). A key element of Incremental Planning is a pluralistic view of a society. Rather than undertaking fundamental inquiry into alternatives and consequences each time, policy comparisons are limited to the few factors that differ in relatively small degree from existing policies. It is only necessary to study the aspects in which the proposed alternative and its consequences differ from the status quo (Lindblom,) . Incremental Planning avoids a comprehensive approach and describes decision-making as it actually occurs. It recognizes that policies keep changing with times and is in a continuous process of change. This method does not require huge sets of information and instead concentrates on the consequences of limited change. It is flexible and can respond to radically constrained situations faced by decision-makers. "Disjointed incrementalism" seeks to adapt decision making strategies to the limited cognitive capacities of decision makers to reduce the scope and cost of the information collection and computation.
Incrementalism is a belief that because examination of all possible alternatives is impossible due to time, resources and expertise, leaders must fashion incremental decisions or 'one at a time'. This form of planning theory is usually preferred by public decision making, as incrementalism clearly fits within the pattern of their time frames.'(Caitlin, 1997)
Six primary requirements for "Disjointed Incrementalism" model:
no comprehensive survey and evaluation of all alternatives, the decision-maker focuses only on those policies which differ incrementally from existing policies;
Only a relatively small number of policy alternatives are considered;
For each policy alternative, only important consequences are evaluated;
The problem confronting the decision-maker is continually redefined: Incrementalism allows for countless end-means and means-ends adjustments which, in effect, make the problem more manageable;
Thus, there is no one decision or "right" solution but a "never-ending series of attacks" on the issues at hand through serial analyses and evaluation; and
As such, incremental decision-making is described as remedial, geared more to the alleviation of present, concrete social imperfections than to the promotion of future goals.
CASE STUDY 1:
The Don River regeneration project (Toronto)
The Don River flows through the heart of Toronto, Canada. This river runs through 360 square kilometers of land, is over 80% urbanized and serves 800,000 people. Today it is counted among some of the most degraded Rivers in Canada. In the older parts of the City of Toronto, the Don receives direct raw sewage overflows from sanitary sewers during the periods of high rainfall. More so, the once 100% forested Don now has only 7.2% forest cover. Adding to this loss, it has also lost a significant portion of its wetlands which has further resulted in deteriorating health for this river.
But even in this state of ill health, and polluted degraded habitats, there are encouraging signs for regeneration. "Eighteen species of fish still live in the river system, though no longer brook trout or salmon. There are almost twenty designated natural areas (Environmentally Significant Areas [ESAs], Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest [ANSIs], and Ministry of Natural Resources wetlands) within the watershed. Trails are being built in many areas. Old combined sewers are being remediated in the Lower Don to reduce sewage contamination in the river. Since Hurricane Hazel in 1954, a great deal of the Don's valley and stream corridors has been brought into public ownership, resulting in a better starting point for regeneration than many other urban rivers enjoy. Most important, throughout the watershed residents and businesses are taking responsibility for the Don in many types of volunteer activities, and governments are coming to share accountability, planning, and funding for regeneration."
The regeneration project is a long term renewal project for restoring this deteriorating river's watershed to health. It basically aims at protecting what is healthy and regenerating what is degenerated. So, in 1992, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) created the Don Watershed Task Force with a mandate to develop a regeneration plan for the entire watershed. This 25-member Task Force included one elected representative from each of the two regional and eight local municipalities; ten watershed residents; the Chair of the TRCA; and one representative each from The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, The Task Force to Bring Back the Don, and Friends of the Don York Region. The formation of this Task Force marked the beginning of the Transactive planning process.
The birth of the Task Force was the culmination of an exciting process that started on February 23, 1989 when Toronto City Council asked that 'the Neighborhoods Committee be requested to consider establishing a Don River Clean-Up Task Force, which could be comprised of local residents and City Councilors to pursue the clean-up of the Don River by the year 2001." This was in addition to endorsing in principle a recommendation of the St Lawrence Neighborhood Advisory Council "That the Don River and its related recreation and wildlife areas be made fully useable, accessible and safe for the people of Toronto no later than the year 2001."
500 people came out on April 1, 1989 to an all day Forum on the Don at the Ontario Science Centre. That was where after a series of discussions between the planning body and the citizens in concern many issues regarding Don River pollution came up. Issues regarding water cycle and storm water pollution came up. Helen Juhola, a resident talked about the great natural habitats and the urgent need for action to preserve them. Other participants came up with moral imperatives to restore the Don so salmon could once again swim and spawn. Some came up with similar case studies. Finally, it was an energized group of citizens and city councillors working together developing a proposal to the city for a task force. The basic idea for a public task force was to come up with solutions and strategies which were not just catering to the planning techniques but also included the public opinions, views and understanding. There was a part of City Council led by Tony O'Donohue that viewed the issue as solely one of water quality - best dealt with by engineers from the Public Works department and there was a part that focused on positive action and innovative communications from the stake holder's perception. The most amazing fact about the task force is that the citizen gets to chair the meetings, thus removing any doubts about planning biases.
The final result of this citizen - planner body was a series of award winning accomplishments which clearly suggests that any planning process works efficiently and effectively, if supported by both the technical experts and the stakeholders.
CASE STUDY 2:
The Hillsborough County Solid Waste Site Selection Controversy: A case study of Incrementalism (Catlin, 77-106)
Hillsborough County includes Tampa and two other municipalities. This underwent tremendous growth between 1945 and late 1970's. Hillsborough County's population has increased more than three times during this time period. In June, 1977 after a lot of controversy and oppositions from developers Hillsborough County Planning Commission (HCPC) developed a comprehensive plan known as "Horizon 2000" consisting of the following elements:
future land use,
traffic circulation,
sanitary sewer,
solid waste,
drainage and potable water,
conservation,
recreation and open space,
housing,
coastal zone protection,
mass transit port aviation and related facilities,
Utilities and intergovernmental coordination.
It was a broad policy-oriented Long Range Comprehensive Plan, which was criticized just before and immediately after its adoption as too broad and vague. The key criticism that came up was 'given this plan , how well could it be applied to solving some of county's "real world" problems, such as worsening air quality, environmental impact issues and land use conflicts.' The Plan stood for test soon after. With Hillsborough County's rapid growth during the period of 1960 - 1980, coupled with the increase in disposed waste, there was a desperate need for solid waste facility expansion toward the end of the 1970's. Despite advances in recycling and resource recovery technology, almost all sanitary engineers, elected officials, and citizen leaders realized there would still be a need for some type of landfill operation in Hillsborough County. Officials did not want to infuriate residents by publicly announcing plans for new landfill areas, the officials remained less vocal about the entire matter. But by the late 1970's, this issue could no longer be avoided. New landfill sites were needed to be identified, existing ones needed to be closed or expanded. The selection of the landfill was to be made by the Hillsborough County. The comprehensive plan "Horizon 2000" couldn't be referred to as it was too broad, too general and vague.
By 1977 several of the operating landfills in Tampa and Hillsborough County had reached their maximum capacity and had to be closed. The County closed the Northeast Landfill and opened a 40 acre one in the nearby Taylor road (Incremental approach); the landfill was planned for only 4 years. It was opened without much publicity and since most of the residents were low income workers or retirees living on social security, were not organized enough to protest the action effectively. The commission promised the residents that the landfill would be in use until 1980 and later that site will be turned into a recreational park. Years later, one of the Taylor road residents even poured out his disgust by saying, "We really believed those bastards. How could we be so dumb?" This followed a notice from the Department of Environmental Regulation that it was in violation due to the pollution of Tampa bay by the incinerator. Then Gibsonton landfill and some two other landfills were closed. After the closure of two more landfill, additional landfill capacity was required. Hillsborough county government was aware that there is a need for more landfill area. An engineering firm of Reynolds, Smith and Hill then recommended the Commission to use four transfer stations in rural and undeveloped locations at least 2 miles from residential neighborhoods - another temporary solution to the problem faced by the county. 'A transfer station is a facility where private and contract haulers can dump trash and garbage, which is then compacted on site and placed into containers for shipment by tractor-trailer to a landfill site'. The use of these transfer stations minimizes not only the volume of solid waste but trips directly to landfill site as well. Meanwhile the County government started a search for a new landfill site that could be in service for about 10-20 years. Next, the County decided to use an old 3,500 acre, abandoned phosphate mine, the Sydney Mine under the recommendation of Reynolds, Smith and Hill. Sydney Mine was located about 6 miles from an unincorporated urban place called Brandon, which consisted of a community of suburban, middle class, single family houses and was a big attraction for new developers and realtors.
In 1980 when the Taylor road landfill reached a stage of full capacity and it should have been closed, as promised to replace by a recreational park, but the County extended the landfill permit for one more year for high rise filling. That year, Tampa Hillsborough County, Temple Terrace and Plant City formed an Inter-local Management Committee, which was designated to conduct required resource recovery studies and plan for new landfill capacity as needed. The City of Tampa also entered into a consent decree with the US Environmental Protection Agency to upgrade atmospheric emissions from its incinerators or cease operations.
Hillsborough County government had three options regarding solid waste disposal:
Expand the Taylor road facility to a possible 10 year life then move to resource recovery - and face the infuriated residents of Taylor road who were promised a park.
Acquire Sidney Mine as a new landfill site with a 20 year life - face opposition from developers and realtors in Brandon
Find another landfill site (which is very tough).
After a lot of discussion and study another interim plan was developed to cover the period until resource recovery would be generally available. Following the plan the County almost decided upon the Sydney Mine just to be opposed by the enraged Brandon residents in a violent public meeting. Finally, a Solid Waste Task Force consisting of the citizens from diverse backgrounds was formed to study the issue. After a number of meetings, site visits, technical considerations, social considerations and financial considerations, the Task force gave its decision to expand Taylor road though all the statistics were indicating to Sydney Mine. The decision reached was the case of politics at its worst with no representative of the low class Taylor road residents in the task force and extreme pressure from the developers and realtors of Brandon. To keep the residents of Taylor road pacified, the County gave them a mere compensation of $3.1 million in damages and attorneys fees to some 400 residents and their families.
The study concluded that the first mistake that the Hillsborough county government and HCPC did not utilize the rational comprehensive process to identify a new landfill site as far back as 1974, with the given population growth, existing landfill capacity and consultant studies. However both sought to incrementalism - the line of least resistance and ended up in unfair development planning.
COMPARISION AND CONTRAST:
The two case studies; Don River regeneration project(Toronto) and Hillsborough County Solid waste Controversy show a big difference in the basic approach in the decision making and planning process. Don River regeneration project (Toronto) follows transactive planning process where it includes stake holders of the project to be the part of the planning process. There is a dialogue, mutual learning and no political bias in the process. This case made sure it let all the stake holders of the project be a part of it. And it looks for a best solution which fits for all stake holders.
Where as the second case study; (Hillsborough County Solid Waste Controversy case study) is a classic case of incrementalism. The county commission made decisive moves only when they absolutely had to. Right from the time the comprehensive master plan, 'the horizon 2000' was prepared; the commission followed a piecemeal approach. Throughout the planning process there is a political bias in the planning process.
Transactive planning process
Don River regeneration project(Toronto)
Incremental planning process
Hillsborough County Solid Waste Controversy case study
Problem definition is clear
Problem definition is not clear and the problem is ignored.
There is an aim of regeneration
There is no aim. (When hit with a problem, they looked for temporary solution.)
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) created task force. The basic idea for a task force was to come up with solutions and strategies which were not just catering to the planning techniques but also included the public opinions, views and understanding without any bias.
There is a communication gap. And there is a bias in creating the task force. The entire 16 member task force had three representatives from Brandon, two from the development community, while three represented high powered corporate, four academics and two public agents but none represented the victims - the residents of Taylor Road area.
Involved all stake holders in the planning process.
Stake holders were not involved and were not properly informed about the decisions. Here the authorities tried their best not to involve the residents and the stakeholders for fear of opposition.
There is a dialogue and mutual learning by series of discussions between planning body and citizens
Planning body considered short term alternatives for the issues.
Processed knowledge and experience is used in solving the problem. Conflict is accepted. communication and interaction between the user and the planner/manager was given immense significance
Only technical and processed knowledge is used in making decisions. Comprehensive plan was prepared by planning professionals(a broad policy-oriented long range plan
Final result is a series of award winning accomplishments. Users are satisfied
The entire process was controlled by men in power and so the final outcome was in their favor.
CONCLUSION:
The Don River regeneratiuon project case study showed that any kind of allocation issue is a controversial issue and in such cases transactive planning process proves immensely successful. Planning was not carried out with respect to an anonymous target community of beneficiaries, but in face-to-face contact with the people affected by decisions. In contrast to incremental planning, more emphasis is given to processes of personal and organizational development, not just the achievement of specific functional objectives.
The Hillsborough case was more a politicized case and a quite a bad example of an incremental planning approach. The basic idea of an incremental procedure is to avoid comprehensive planning, so as to make the plan flexible enough to have room for any unexpected issues in future, availability of resources and time. So, it is basically a system that is planned as a whole but realized in parts with a constant, step by step increase in functionality. In Hillsborugh County Solid Waste controversy case study the entire process was controlled by men in power and so the final outcome was in their favor whether justified or not. By contrast, incremental planning adheres more closely to the economic logic of individuals pursuing their own self-interest.
LITERATURE CITED
_________________________________________________________________
Catlin, R.A. (1997) Land Use Planning, Environmental Protection and Growth Management: The Florida Experience (Ann Arbor Press), 77-106
Caulfield, H. P., Jr. (1975) Politics of multiple objective planning. Proceedings of the
Multiple Objective Planning and Decision Making Conference (The Idaho Research
Foundation, Moscow, Idaho)
Etzioni, Amitai. (1967) "Mixed Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-making", in Faludi, Andreas. 1973. A Reader in Planning Theory (Pergamon Press)
Faludi, Andreas (1973) A Reader in Planning Theory (Pergamon Press)
Gilpin, A. (1986) Environmental Planning (Noyes Publications), 88
MacLeod, David, David Macleod's planning and environmental information, March 9, 2003
McCool, Stephen F. and Ashor, Joseph L., Politics and Rivers: Creating effective citizen involvement in management decisions
Friedmann, J. (1973) "Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning". Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor
Stankey, G. H., McCool, S. F., and Stokes, G. L. (1984)." Limits of Acceptable Change: A
new framework for managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex". Western
Wildlands 10(3): 33-37.
Stokes, (G. L. 1983). "Conservation of the Blackfoot River corridor -An application of
transactive planning theory". (Unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado.)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.macleod/PTHRY.HTM
http://mwilson.on.ca/don.html
http://www.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/geo/pdf/frombelow/0308_frombelow_tan.pdf
http://www.forestry.umt.edu/academics/courses/Recm485/Articles/mccool%20and%20ashor.pdf
