Briassoulis

8/8/2019 Briassoulis

1/12

FORUMTheo retica O rientat ions in En vironm ental Planning:A n Inquiry nto Alternative A pproachesHELEN BRIASSOULISSoutheastern CollegeAtriens, GreeceABST RACT / I n the p roc e s s of de vis ing c ou r se s of a c t ion toresolve problems arising at the societyenvironment inter-face, a variety of planning approaches are followed, whoseadoption is influenced byarnong other things---the cher-acteristics of environmental probierns, the nature of the deci-s ion- rna king c on te xt , a nd the in te l l e c tua l t r a d it ions of the d i s -c ip l ine s c ont r ibu t ing to the s tudy of the se p rob le m s . This a r -de le p rovide s a sy s te rna t ic a na . ly s i s of s x a l te rna t iveenvironmental planning approachescomprehensive/ra-banal, incremental, adapfive, contingency, advocacy, andparticipatory/consensual, The retative nfluence of the aboy e -

rnentioned factors is exarnined, the occurrence of these ap-proa c h e s in r e a l -wor ld s itua t ions i s note d , a nd the i r e nvi ron-mental soundness and political realism is evaluated. Becauseof the disparity between plan formulation and implementationa nd be twe e n the o re t i c a l for ro a n d e mp r ic a ! r e a l i ty : a syn-the t i c v ie w of envi ronmenta l planning approaches is takenand approaches in action are identified, which characterzethe to ta l i ty of the p la nning p ro c e se f rom p rob le m de f in i t ion toplan implernentation, as well as approaches ri t he becoming ,w h i c h r n a y be o n t h e h o r i z o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l p l a n n i n g o ftomorrow. The suggested future research directions includecase studies to verify and detall the presence of the ap-proaches discussed, developing measures of success of agiven approach in a given decision setting, and an intertem-parai a.narysis of environmental planning approaches.

Environmental problems have always existed, burche need co study them systematically for determiningcourses of action to allocate and/or distribute environ-mental resources and. services arnong cornpeting usesfairly and efficiently was not tett unta the late 1960sand early 1970s, The environmental movement was atits high point, environmental crises were makingbeadlines, leading personalities were drawing thepublic's attention ro the imminent threats of heedlessenironmental abuse, and. the federal government wasembarking in ambitious programs co ger the mounringenvironmental degradation u.nder control, Hence, en-vironmental planning emerged as a funetional areawithin the broader field of planning and as an activityunderr.aken by individuals and organizations dealngwith problems arising at the societyenvironment in-terface and devising courses of action ro solve th.eseproblems.

The theory and praccice of environmental planningexhibir a variety of approaches co the formulation andimplementation of solutions to environmentalproblerns. Each approach reflects a particular pintos-ophy and mode of thinking about how diese problemscan and/or should be defined, a.natyzed, and solved.

KEY WORDS: Env i ronmen ta l p l ann ing ; P l ann ing theo ry; P l ann ing ap-proaches

Addrrss corresponclence to: Fleten Brias.soulis ROd011 12 , Marouss iI5122, Athens, Greece.

Despite che considerable [tumbes of theoretical andemprica' studies in che field, link has been done coidentify and analyze these environmental planning ap-proaches. This may he pardy due co a view of plan-ning as being principally concerned with proceclurerather tha.n substance (Faludi 1987, Davidoff andReiner 1973) and pardy due to the relative infancy ofthe field of envronmental planning'. The presentstudy is a modest attempt at a systernaric inquiry intoalternative enviromn.ental planning approaches based00 the theoretical and empiricat literature dealing withenvironmental problems and their solucions in theUniced Srates. 1ts purpose is ro examine the majarfactors that inf tuence diese approaches, co discuss themain approaches followed (explicitly or implicitly) inenvironmental planning, to evaluare their environ -mental soundness and political realism, and co oudineemerging approaches in both theory and environ-I l l e11121 planning prac t i ce . The approaches exarninedViere may not differ from the planning strategies ortraditions chara.cterizing planning in general (Botan1967, Hudson 1979), but the thrust of the presemwork is co analyze the relative va:lit/ny of each ap-proach in different environmental problem and dect-s ion set t ing.

The articie starts with a discussion of the major in-fluences upan environmental planning approaches.Alternative approaches are presented and evaluated,nexo followed by a synthesis of (hese approaches. Theanide doses with the main conclusions of the inquiryand a future research agenda.

En y i ronmenta l Man agement Vol . 13 , No. 4 , pp . 381-392989 Spr inger-Ver :ag New York inc .


2/12

382. BriassoulisFactors Int luencing EnvironrnentalPlann ing ApproachesIn order to underscand and explain how and whyalternative approaches emerge and are pursued in thec.ontext of a particular environmental planningproblern, ir is necessary to examine those factors con-ditioning the desirable approach. to that problem. Theensuing analysis is hased on the principal propositionthat the major factors influencing environmentalplanning approaches are: (I) the characteristics of en-vironmental problems; (2) the characteristics of thedecision-making context within which sotutions aresou.ght, devised, arrd pursued; and (3) the intellectualtraditions of the disciplines contributing to the studyof environmental prohlerns. The particular approachactually adopted depends on the differential influencieof diese factors in a given. environmental decision situ-ation and, of course, on the decision maker(s)' person-ality (a factor not considered. in Chis study). In the fol-l owi ng , th . e cha rac t e r i s t ic d i men s i ons of eac h fac t o r a r ediscussed in order to set. the stage for the analysis ofalternative approaches.

C harac t e r i s t ic s of E nvi ronm ent a l P rob l emsFour climensions are considered here as descriptive

of the nature of environmental problems: the orgin ofthe problems, th.eir spatial and tem.poral character,and the uncertainty and risk associalecl with their solu-don.

Enviromnental problems may originare in "aas ofGod" or naturethe case of natural hazarclsor inacts of manthe case of man-induced hazardsor incombinations of chose acts. "the critica' considerationin planning for problerns of clifferent origins is che na-cure and Level of control man has ro affect a problem'sso l u t i on .

Enviromnental problems span the whole spectnimof spatial levels from the local to the global. Localp rob l ems m ay be eas i e r t o obse rve , ana l y ze , and ob t a i n .the necessary consensus un the desirable course of ac-don to solve diem. In contrast, global problems, be-sides sornetimes heing scientific puzzles because of thedifficulties to observe and analyze th.em in an unam-biguous fashion, pose tremendous difficulties with re-spect to obtaining the consensus needed on the propercourse of action ro attack them. Moreover, for a largenumber of environmental problems there is a dis-mrbing separacion between the locus of cheir causesand che locus of their effects, a fact that often rendersdie solution of an apparently local problem difficult .ifnot unfeasible. t'erice, at a given spatial levet, the ap-proach tu the solution of an. environmental problem is

conditioned by the amount of control over thatproblem's causes and avalable remedia' mearas.

Environniental problems may be short or longterna, and their effects may be acute or chronic. Acute,short-terco problems usually assurrie crisis proportionsand elid immediate, reactive responses while chronic,long-terno problems encourage a wait-and-see ap-proach until a crisis breaks out.

The causes and effects of environmental problemsare very rarely known with certainty; hence, there isalwavs a cer ta in. anoo unt . of r isk involved in ignor ing ortackling diese problems. Usual!) , man intervenes in thenatural order of things on the assumption that na-ture's resilience and assimilative capacity are infinite.Contrary to his expectations, in certain instaures chisassumption does not huid and recoverv from man-in-duced hazards may be, for practical purposes, impos-sible. Alternative planning approaches differ signifi-cantly in. the ways they h.andle the uncertainty of envi-ronmental phenomena and the leve' of tolerable risksociety is willing tu take with respect to the solution ofenvironmental problems.

Natura of Deasion-Making SettinaThe environmental decision-rnaking setting can be

describe(' in ternas of che nature of the decisions t bemide, the tradicional structure an.cl mode of public de-cision and policy making, the distribution of powerand authority in making the related decisions, the legalapparatus and institucional structure in support of chedecisions taken, and the generaring forres behind en-vi ronment a l i s su es .

Decisions on environmental problems are heavilyinfluenced by the leve) of ideological agreement on.che nature of a problem, the scope of diese decisions(Le., number of affected individuals, grOups, arcas,etc.), cheir coses, and their time horizon. More oftenthan. not, environrnental control decisions at all spat.iall eve l s a re ho uly debated , ne t . necessar i ly becau se of rack.of consensus among contending parties buz because ofcher broad scope, high coses, distributional conse-quences, and the long time horizons involved. Conse-quently, most approaches to solving such problemshave been reactive and corrective rather chau preven-tive and anticipatory.

The structure of che political system and the pre-vailing mode of puhlic policy making unquestionablyaffect che way environmental ssues are approachedand resolved. When demand for solucions to environ-mental problems is cohesive and integrated, a.nd cleci-son making s relatively centralized, holistic ap-proaches to environmental problems are more likely tobe taken. Frequently, however, demand is fra.gmented


3/12

Environrnental Planning Approaches83and decision making is decentralized, the result beingpiecemeal, distributive, and/or regulatory approadiesto environmental problems. (For a more general dis-cussion of the determinante of policy types, see Sals-bury and Heinz 1970).

The distribution of power an.d authority in a givendecision sening decisively influences the actual ap-proach ro solving an environmental problem. Environ-mentally sound approaches will be ignored if they donot serve the interests of those in power, and alterna-n ye, more "pragmatic" approach.es will be adopte('(somentnes being strategies of nondecision; Crenson1971). Sitni lar l y , the approaches that uttimately survivewili he (hose that do not exceed the limits of authorityin rnaking and enforcing solutions at a given decision-making levet. For example, several of the ma.ndates ofthe Cleart Water A.ct of 1972 could not be enforcedbecause the local levets did not have, arnong otherthings, the requisite authority to make and enforcewater pollution regulations or plans, especiatly whenthe sources of pollution were bes'ond their jurisdic-tional boundaries.

Equally important is the influence of the legal ap-paratus and insititutional structure in support of solu-tions to environmental problems. Passage of the NEPAof 1969, of the .Housing and Community Develop-ment Act of 1974 (specifically Section 701), and of theClean \Yacer Act of 1972 (specifically Section 208),arnong others, have been signficant forces in spurringor encouraging comprehensive planning approachesto environmental problems. For several such studies inthe field of warer-resources planning, the interestedreader is referred to Grigg (1985).

Finally, environmental problems are brought cit.th.e public agenda by forces original:Mg in indvidualsand/0r societal .m.ovements that influence the planningapproach :followed. Although this factor is consider-ably more variable than the previous orles, it seemsthat comprehensive or radical approaches ni environ-mental problems are more probable when environ-mental movemenrs bold strongly, the public pushesfor solutions and its support persisis over time, andinfluential leaclers take the risk to look al the broaderpicture instead of caring only for their own turf.

Inte lectual Tradi t ions of Contr ibut ing Discip l inesEnvironmental problems have been iooked at from

va.rious disciplinary perspectives, n'atril), ecology, eco-nomics, engineering, latid use and regional planning,and political science, and the approaches suggestedhave the imprint of the characteristic way of thinkingof the contributing disciplines (Petak 1980, House1976). Although it is risky to generalize about those

"disciplnary ways of thinking," because of paradig-matic shifts taking place within disciplines, certa.incommonly held beliefs regarding eachprincipal way of thinking can be used ro indicate [heirinfluence on environmental planning approaches.

Ecologythe discipline par excellence n the studyof environmental problemsstresses the interconnec-tedness of things in nature. Consequendy, the ecolog-kat planning approach tend.s to be holistic, integrated,and comprehensive (Entes 1984). The ecological wayof t h i nk ing h as 1 , teatly influenced other disciplines en-gaging n environmental problem solving. The mate-Hills balance approach advocated by Kneese (Kneeseand others 1970), Daly's (1983) steady-state economymodel, and km McHarg's (1969) "ecological deter-ministn" are a few exarnples of this in.fluence.

Econontics' response ro environmemal externalitiesis ro resurrect the market ro foster the efficient useand oprima' allocation of resources through rnarket.m.echanistus such as prices and pollution taxes andcharges. Traditional economc analysis, applied to en-vironmental problems, deals with. aggregates and mar-ginal changes in a pardal or general equitibrium con-text, the result being aggregate approaches eschewingthe questions of the pturalistic nature of dieseproblems and the environmental SO U ndness of th.eproposed solutions.

The e igineering approach Co environmentalproblem solving is to break clown a problem intostn.aller ones and to devise a structural saludan to eachsubproblern, in the hope that che sum of Frese pardalsolutions will lead co amelioration of the originalproblent (Deknatel 1983). 'This piecemeat rnechanisticapproach has been characteristic of many pass effortsto cope with natural hazards and environmental deg-ra.dation.

Political science usually prohes into questions of theproper role of government in environmental affairs,the collective choice rnechanisms and the public policyinstrumems to achieve environmental goa.ls, and thedistributional (over space and time) effects of policyand planning decisions.

Latid use and regional planning approaches envi-ronmental problems .mostly from a systems analydc di-rection seeking to rationalize decisions on the use andprotecticm of environmental resources and services.Concepts borrowed from ecologysuch as carryin.gcapacity, rnaterials balance, river basin, etc.serve asorganizing frameworks on the hasis of which solutionsto problems are elaborated (Isard 1972, Kaskell 1971.,McHarg 1969, Kneese and others 1970).

',Che majar influences on environmental planningapproaches examine(' aboy e are neither independent


4/12

384, Br iassou l isof one another nor do they affect ea.ch approach toche same extent. There are interactions between allthree of them, discussion of which is beyond the scopeof che present arcicle. These imeractions will be men-tioned, however, in the context of specific approachesthat are analyzed in the next section.

Alternative Environmental Planning ApproachesThe cheory and practice of environmetual planning

in che United States exhibas a variecy of alternativeapproaches followed in the search for solutions to en-viron.mental problems, of which the foilowing six aresingled out for discussion and evaluation as being themost frequently encountered: conprehensivelrational,increment21, adaptive, contingency, advocacy, andparticipatorykonsensual planning. Each of diese ap-proaches is described first and then the influence ofthe re levan t determina ras i s e .x .a.mine d, Real-world ex-amples of che approach analyzed are given and, fi-rtally, its environmental soundness and political re-alism are evaluated. Table 1 summarizes che results ofthe analysis and evaluation of the six approaches.

Com prehens ive /Rat iona l P lann ingA logical extension of the tradicional comprehen-

sive model clominating latid use and regional plarminguntil the late sixties, the comprehensve approach wasthe first w be advocated and applied in environmentalplanning prernised on the spatiotemporal interconnec-tedness of things in nature. The thrust of the ap-proach is: (1) objective and exhaustive analysis of theenvironmental and socioeconomic conditions of anarea along the Eines of a systems analytic frameworkb or r owi ng b a s i c c onc e p t s f r om e c o l ogy ( e c os ys t e m , s t a -bility, reslience, carrying capacity), (2) identificationand formulation of alternative solutions to theprohlem studied, and (3) selection of the best solutionthat meets objective scientific criteria. Experts aregiven a primary role assumirtg that the) , work for thepuhlic interest. The environmental planner is more ofan a.policical, technical experc, striving to engneer aharrnonious relationship between trature's and man'sworks to avoid irreversible damage and. to secure thelong-term viabi t i ty of ecosysterns.

The cornprehensive approach has been supriortecland pursuecl at a time when che en y rontnental 1-trove-ment a.nd the influence of strong personalities were attheir peak and there was strong ideological consensuson the need co fiucl long-term solutions to rnajor envi-ronmental problems. Despite the incremcntal men-tality of public decision making and the fragmentation

of power and authority among jurisdictions and orga-nzations (Rosenbaurn 1985), the federal governmencpassed the Nacional Environmental Protection Act of1969 and crea red che Envronmental ProtectionAgency co set the stage for cornprehensive attacks onthe nation.'s.ost threatening environmentalp rob l ems .Support for the comprehensive approach has comenot only .from ecologiscs and biologists, but also fromeconornists, regional planners, and political scient.istswho believe that effective solutions to environrnentalproblems require holistic analysis, systematic genera-don of solutions, objective choice processes, and coor-dination aniong the relevant instatitions and a.chninis-trative b


5/12

Environrnental Planning Approaches8 5Jable 1. Environmental planning approaches and their determinants. Planning approaches.Determinarasime n s io n sa/J.1eso r a p r eh en s i v ee c re rn e n s a ldaptiveontingencydvocacyarticipatoryL Characteristics of.1 Originuman

enviromnentaia t a reproblems.2 Spariziocaldirnens ioneg i o n a lGlobal1.3 Temporalhort mrmdimensionong tern/1.4 Risk!LowumertaintylighCharacteristics of.1 Nature ofread scope, high1:he decasion-ecisionsoses, long t imema kin g c o n te x t ,o r iz o n ,d i sag T eemen tN a rro w s c o p e , l o wcoots , short l imeh o r iz o n ,agreentent2.2 Mode/ntegrated

structure ofenla/id,public decis ionentra l izedma kin gecidan makingFragmentaddemand,deeentra l izedde c i s io n i n a k in g2.3 Dis tr ibu t ion ts roricentra tedp o we rragn ier iced2.4 Legal/xistainst i tucionaloes r iot exis tstruclOU',2,5 Gene/ateatrong(orcesea k

Inte l lec tua l.1 Ecologytraditions of.2 Ec o n o mie scontributing,3 Engineeringdisc ip l ine.4 Latid use/regionalplanning3,5 Po l i t ical

scienceEvaluation of approaches'Environmental somadnessesNo.Polit ical realistasesN o xxxxxXxX XXx .X5.X x5.q u es ta : in mark indica res ru a r i t u no r p oss ibre ro answ er the q u es t inn w ith ce rn t in ty . Bla r t i t sp anes ind ica re tha t the co r resp ondir iky henar (o r a sp e r i t ic d imens ion o a f ac to r} te (so r re levara o rdominara for the approach andied,hThe eva lu a t ion re te rs ro the ap p roaches % f i/1 a re p a rsu ed t t p rac t ice . 1 5 is n ro t a no rm at ive ava l . . .ra t ion .an approach implementable in real-world settings isabsent and rarely ctesirable in democratic societies(House 1976). Interjurisdictional cooperation is diffi-culi Lo achieve because of lack of appropriate institu-cional tnechanisms (Mutilar and Rogers (982), and thepressure politics exercised by the plethora of interestgroups afTected by environmental control decisionsmake this approach unfeasible salce jt does not in-dude citizen participation in the planning process.nally, in its overconcern with erivironmentaal protec-non, this approach has historically ignored the socio-economic cost implications of planning' proposals, theresult being the ultitnate abandonment of the "cleanenvironment" drearn for a less dran clean reality.

Inc r e m e n t a ! P l a nn i ngGoing to the other extreme, the incrementa' ap-

proach seems to rule the practice of environmentalplanning. Environmental problems are given attentiononly when they reach crisis proportions, in a dis-jointed, .uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion. Planningdegenerates finto crisis management with whatevermeans are available al the moment. Even newproblems are attacked through outmoded rneans be-cause past practice is the best guille for most decisiontnakers (Rosenbaum 1985).

The incrementa' approach has been viewed as aninevitable consequence of the world of potajes. More


6/12

38 6. Br iassou l isoften than non ideological consensus on environ-mental problems is difficult to achieve. Fragrnentationand imbal.ances of power and authority among juris-dictions and interese groups, and the irtcremental, ds-triburive mode of public policy niaking do not allowcomprehensive solutions to environmental problemst materialize and be effective ini addition, the prac-tice of local land use planning. with its emphasis onlocal autonorny and the application of engineering,structural solutions to reduced, bounded problems,has set the precedent for similar treatment of environ-mental problems ("the solution to pollution is dilution"arriende), precludiug more comprehensive, anticipa-tory, and cooperative approaches, and exacerbatinginterjurisdictional conflicts. Charles Lindblom (1973)aptly juseified incrementalism in environmental plan-ning when he wrote:Most of w believe that because we becante irrvolved in our environ-mentsd difficulties piecerneal, we shall have to get out cornprehensi-vety . . Clearly the argument writains a fallacv. We did fall tinto ourenvitonmental problenis through piecerneal gradrialism. That stillleaves apeo the possibility that the sane route is the only mute out ofthe problernelievi.ng that everything is interconnected, we fatiinca the logical fallacy of believing the only way to improve those in-terconnections is ro deal with diem all a.t once .... But because every-thing o connected, it is heyond our capacity ro rnaniputate variablescomprehensively. Because everything is interconnected, the whole ofu h r e envirortmennd problem is beyond our capacity co control in orneunified policy. We have co fin(' critical points of interventions...."

Most environmental control efforts are incrementa(ini nature. Environmental crises, either of a natural orhuman origin, are u.sually handled individuall y , iso-lated from th.eir broader contc:xt, and within the rangeof possibility of ava.ilable rneans. On the onher hand,routine management. of natural and man-inducedproblems is based on en.vironmental regulationthepredotninant tool applied towards correction of socialerrors (Benveniste 1981). Regulatory activa:y is frag-mented between environmental inediaair, water,land, and biotawith separate programs and organi-zations dealing with each medium. This fragmentationhas occurred incrementally as experience with envi-ronmental problems accumulated and govermnentsreorganized and expanded their involvement in envi.-ronmenta/ management (Rabe 1986).

Clearly, the incremental approach does non meenche environmental soundness criterion because of itslimited vision of unbounded environmental problems(Ederrund.s 1981). A mere enumeration of pollutionepisodes and natural disasters provides evidence of itsineffectiveness. On policical ground.s, the approachmay appear pragrnatic, but it leaves many questionsunanswered. sud: as: who decides th.e level of accepr-

able risk, especially for life-threatening environmentalproblems (e.g. , nuclear accidents , toxic waste disposal ) ;how do we rreat new problems for which no prior ex-perience exists and for which the strat.egy of ignoranceis not politically expedietu; how do we know that thestep taken wili lead us to where we want IDgo; andwhat is the role of citizen participation in. environ-mental decision making? Ciearly, the incremental ap-proach favors the furtherance of the status quo-svhatever this may happen ro beand from an envi-ronmental viewpoint, it gambles with nature.

Adap t i ve P l ann i ngRepresenting a mentality of prepared responsive-

ness (Holling 1978), che adaptive approach con.sists ofa series of successive and continuous adaptations ofhuman activities to variable, over space and time, envi-ronmental and socioeconomic conditions. It is antici-patory in that it develops solutions co problerns on thebasis of predictable future events. It stresses the needfor flexibility at each step of che planning process toallow for changes in direction necessitated by changesin gozas, revised future predictions, and availability ofnew evidence. Environmenta.1 planning hecomes acontinuous process of adaptive iearning (Daneke1983) starting with plan (or policy) formulation, pro-ceeding to implementation, and progressing with planevolution int() the future. Contintious interactions be-tween sciendsts and planners as well as interestedparties are an indispensable mechansert throughwhi ch ac l ap t a t i on i s accom p l i shed .As an approach to environmental probletns, citeadaptive approach has a long history. Man has re-sponded co relost natural hazards through adaptation(McIlarg, 1969), following raiher [han leading naturaland h.timan evolution. In its contemporary form, theadaptive approach, grounded on systems anal y sis, rec-ognizes the dynamic character of ecosystems, the un-cerniinty associated with descrbing th.em and pre-dicting the environmental consequences of human a.c-tivities, and the existence of both sensitive and robustelements in ecosystems that should be identified prop-erly so that human uses of environmental resourcescan be accommodated withoun however, jeopardizingche complexity, srability, and resilience of ecosystems(Hol l ig 1978) .

Adaptive environmental planning has been advo-cated notot only by ecologists but also by political scien-tists and latid use planners. The former view it as anapproach helping society to learn from pass mistakes,developing the ability to enabrace error, and hence,tdstering social responsibility in contrast to che pacer-nalism of traditional regulation which erodes this re-


7/12

Env i ronmen ta l P lann ing App roaches8 7sponsibility (Daneke 1983). [and use planners find ad-aptation necessary when broad, federal Level policieshave to he apphed at and respond to the needs of thelocal levet. Implementation of the Coastal Zone Man-agement Act of 1972 (CZMA) provides an instructiveexample of adaptation and experimental:ion (Kitsos1985). The need to balance development and environ-mental interests in coastal arcas, as spelled out in theCZMA, has led, on the one hand, lo state programstailored to the particular coastal issues of each state(Matuszeski 1985) and, on the other hand, to th.evelopment of "special arta management planning"and oth.er ant.icipatory planning approaches which at-tempt to anticpate and avoid conflicts before plan en-actment (Healy and Zinn 1.985).

Given the limitations of science to provide clear andun.ambig UOUS answers to environmental problems, acareful adaptation to a predictable future most prob-ably ensures environmetually sound problem solu-tions. although the question. remains of what will beche overall effect of parcial adaptations on the achieve-ment of desirable end states. Also, adaptation does notguarantee efficient use of resources according ro stricteconornc criteria (Daneke 1983). Despite the theoret-ical appeal of ad.aptve planning in a Huid natural andsocial world, at the operacional leve), the political re-alism of chis approach can be questioned on twofronts: first, how much is modem society willng tomake sacrificas in the present to secure the future and,secon.d, how well is society prepared for the kind ofadaptive learning and experimentation mplied by thisapproach. If both. questions are answered in the affir-mative, the vision of a "forgiving society" [a term useclby C. S. Rolling and quoted in Daneke (1983)] may heat our doorstep and adaptive planning wIl be assuredpolitical via.bility.

Cont ingency P lann ingTh.e contingency approach provides anoth.er way of

coping with un.certain environmental problems, eitherof natural or huiran origin, by focusing on thoseaspects of the problems whose unexpected occurrencemay have severe adverse consequences. Planning sneedecl co produce alternative courses of action cofollowed in the event of these contingencies for thepurpose of deflecting them or avoiding their worstconsequences. This is an approach similar to engi-neers' designing structures with a high coefficient ofsafety (Botan 1967) and co corporate contingencyplanning for unexpetted disasters (O'Connor 1978).

The widest application of this approach is found inplanning for arcas prone to natural hazards (Perry

1979, Plan 1982, Kartez 1984), followed by emergencyplanning for man-induced disasters (e.g., technologicalaccidents). The requirement for nclusion of miriga-non plans in envronmental impact scatements or theprovision of mitigation measures in connection withsevera' major activities reflects a contingency planning-m ent a l i ty d i rec t ed t owards avo i d ing ex cess i ve sac r i f i cesin the present but also avoiding or minimizing the fu-cure costs of present decisions.

When advanced as a protective strategy against cer-tain natural hazards, the contingency approach tnay bea sensible planning response. For man-inducedhazards, however, the approach implies a certainamount of environmental risk, slice it does not safe-gu ard ag a ns t t he p oss i b il i ty o f wrong e s t im ares of co n . -tin.gent events, and the value of their consequences,and of economic risk, since preparation of contingencyplans requires resources that have co be diverted fromtheir present uses. The questron in this case is whetherthe postdisaster costs are actually less than the costs ofcareful predisaster planing. Moreover, it makes noclaini that avoid.ance of probable catastrophes will ini-prove human welfare or that desirable environmentalgoals will be met. As a planning strategy for man-caused disasters, it is simply a dangerous last resort(Plan 1984). From the viewpoint of political realism,the approach may be appealing lo distributive and de-cen t ral ize.d sys tem s as i t imp l ies dis t r ibut ion of benefi t sto be clerived in excepcional future circumstances atmnimum or no presem cost and because of its synt-bolic overtones that something is being done for thepublic nterest. But it. entails political risk as well whencontingencies transpire and planning is proven inef-fective or needless, thus causing public diswntent andrevealing the lack of preventve, anticipawry planning.

Advocacy P lann ingBred by the strong icleological character of most en-

vironmental prohlems, che advocacy approach ac-knowledges the impossibility of planning co serve twomasiers at tire same time, i.e., the prodevelopment andproenvironmental interests. Solutions proposed for-environmental problems distinctively comply with thephilosophy and interests of those served. Theories andmethods ernployed are congruent with client valuesand. goals, and data are manipulated to emphasizethose aspects of a problem that support the clients'c la ims.

The advocacy approach is manifested in a variety ofcircumscances invoiving strongly debated environ-mental problems that are broad in scope and whosesolutions imply long-term commitment of resources.Acid rain control s a case inpoint. The precontrol


8/12

388. Briassoulisgroups advance comprehensive solutions ba.sed on. thetheory that the Midwestern utilities are the culpritswho have to pay for the control, and they present evi-dence in support of this theory while disregarding theconsiderable uncertainty of its scientific basis. The an-ticontrol groups push for incremental solutionsinthe farm of modification of the Clean Air Act, techno-logical solutions. and continuad researchexploitingscientific uncertainty and trying to buy time.

The advocacy approach may be also encouragedwhen governments wish to broaden the social oasis ofenvironmental decisions. For example, in the case ofhazardous waste siting in Massachussetts, decisions arearrived at through a process involvng severa( interestgroups proposing solutions favoring their particularinterests (Anderson and Greenberg 1082).

A careful examination of most environmental con-troversies reveas che dominating presence of th.e ad-vocacy approach, but the impasse characterizng theresolution of many environmental problems points toits inherent weaknesses. Allowing advocates of usuallydivergent solutions to compete for influence on envi-ronmental decision making in a decentralized system,characterized by fragmentation of power and au-thority, results in che survival of the fittest. Whetherthe outcome is an environme t a l ly beneficia l orce de-pends on who survives the struggle. The mos( fre-quent outcome, however, is an impasse, which isfraught with environmental risk. Advocacy planningdenies the fact . that i f u l t ima tely a pol i t ical ly acce ptableand enforceable decision is to be made, it has to ac-commodate the interests of all parties affected. Espe-cially wh.en environmental groups remain strong onth.eir posi t io s, they may ultirnately work against envi-ronmental protection, hence, negating the cause oftheir actions. All this pues in question the political re-alism of advocacy in environmental planning.

P ar t i c i p a t o ry /C onsensu a l P l ann i ngThe ideas of participatory democracy and nonad-

versarial dispute resolution have found fertile groundin environmental prohlern solving recendy. Solurionsto environmental problems are sought in common byaffected groups and are given the necessary legti-tnacy, which guarantees their enforcement, at least intheory. The participatorykonsensual approach ismainly, bttt .not exclusively, represented by thegrowing emphasis on and a.pplication of en y i ron-mental mediation a.nd negociador, to the resolution ofenvironmental conflicts. It is premised on a pluraliscicview of reality, voluntary participation of interestedparties, and the possibility of winwin solutions in en-vironmental controversies. Parties present their solu-

tions to problems, based on whatever evidence andmethods they consider appropriate, butfforts arechanneled to finding a common ground and buildinga consensus for resolving differences of opinion anddstributin.g costs and benefits evenly and equitahlyam ong p 2 t r ti c ip an t s .

Mediation and negotiation have been tried in devel-palet conflicts in many instantes, and tb.& exten-sion to environmental problems is a natural continua-don of this trend. In addition, the EPA has started toexperiment with the idea of regulatory negotiationpurporting to employ it in the future as an environ-mental control instrument (Schneider and Tohn1985). Severa' states have already passed legislation re-quirng mediation of environmental conflicts insteadof their adjudicatory resolution (Amy 1987, Susskindand Cruikshank 1987).

Environmental negotiation and mediation haveworked in a rather satisfactory man er with small-scale, local, man-induced problems (Bingham 1986,Mernitz 1980, Bacow and Wheeler 1984) because theirscope was limitad, most parties agreed on the need fora solution, and the costs were rather modest.decentralization affected favorable the success of me-diation in diese cases, and the solutions agreed upanwere supported legislatively and institutionally. Forlarge-scale problems, however, the approach comesunder the narre of "policy dialogues" (Bingham 1986),a temas which stifficiendy refleccs the limited a.pplica-bility of the mediationlnegotiation idea to broad-scopeproblems involving significant scientific evidence,which reinforces ideological disagreernent. Moreover,environmental mediation is as yet untested (or difficultte test) with large-scale problems, and the social andpol i t ical c l imate i s U101 ripe for such experimenution.

It is difficult to judge che environmental soundnessof solutions arrived at through mediation an.d negotia-tion efforts given the unpredictability of the resultingtrade-offs between en y ronmental quality and othersocietal goals. Certainly, the solutions are of the "dis-placed ideal" type (Zel.eny 1982) because of the inevi-table concessious on the part of the proenvironmentalforces. The worst environmental consequ.ences n'ay bedeflected tem.porarily, but there is no assurance that adesired state of the environment will ultimately mate-rialize.. As co the political realism of the participatory/consensual approach, several questions arise: how vi-able is che approach when values and not interestscompete; how imparcial is che approach when inter-ested parties do not participare voluncarily; how fai.r isa mediated solution in a world of unequal power andresources distribution among participants (Amy1987)? These are real and critica[ questions, which, if


9/12

Environrnenta l P lann ing Approaches89answered in the negative, will weaken the appeal of anapproach that promises to reduce rehance on adver-sarial approaches lo the solution of environmentalproblems.SynthesisThe six environmental planning approaches dis-cussed previously represent rather "pure" types.Given, however, the disparity that usually exists be-tween theoretical propositions ami practica' applica-tions, as well. as laetween plan formulation and planimplementaban, the actual approaches pursued andwhich ultimately shape the environment of luaman lifeand experienc,e, are blends of the abo ye cy p e s . Du r i ngthe planning process, pure approaches mesh into anoverall approach to cope with environmentalproblems. Hence the creed is to take a synthetic viewof en.vironmentat planning approaches in orderidentify approaches in act ion mixer of complemert-tary pure typeswhich characterize the totality of en-vi ronmen ta l planning f ro te p rob le n i iden t i r i ca t io ut anddefinition to plan implementar:ion and evolution, andapproaches in the becorning, which may be on th.e ho-rizon of environmental planning of th.e future.

The comprehensiveirational approach has run intomany obstarles ort its way towards finding racional so-lutions to environmental problems. Comprehensiveenvironmental plans usually have hit bottoin when thetime carne for itnplementation and have undergonetransformatons. This is why the comprehensve ap-proach s frequently found in combination with otherapproaches. North Carolina's coastal plan, for ex-ample, is described as che result of a mix of a compre-hensive, adaptive, and contingency planning whichemerged in response to the need to protect the state'scoastal zone and to allow for developrnent of ics re-sources (Owens 1985). New jersey's coastal manage-ment plan combines elements of the comprehensive,adaptive, and participatory approaches (Kinsey 1985).San Diego's environmental plan, although compre-hensive in conception and formulation, is imple-mented through gradual adaptations to local condi-tions and incremental steps, consistent, however, withthe requirements of the comprehensive plan (Shirvaniand Stepner 1986).

The passage of the NEPA of 1969, with its requre-ment for environmental impact assessmeurs (EIAs) ofmajar projects affectin.g che environment, represeutsan unusual combination of compreitensiven.ess and in-crementalism in that, clespite the holistic outlook of theact, EIAs are undertaken on a case-by-case, uncoor-dinatecl , increm ental fa .shion (Twiss 1975) . En fact , this

incrementalism may have fostered the emergence ofantagonistic approaches to corred its inefficiencies-such as tire adaptive impact assessment process(Rolling 1978)or rnay have led to polarizing advo-cacy approaches characteristic of environmentidevel-opment, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and othersimilar disputes.

Incrementalism alone has not provee to be a satis-fac tor ) , approach to environmental problems, but itspervasve influence in real-world decision makingrnakes it an inseparable part of any other alternativeapproach pursued.. Besides the cases mentioned be-fore, incrementalism has combinecl with participatoryplanning, as eviclenced in rnediated environmentalconflicts irr which the solutions agreed opon by theparticipants represent rather sntall deviations from thestatus quo (Amy 1987, Bingham 1986, Bacow andWheeler 1984).

The advocacy approach usu.ally leads to polarities inthe decision environment, with con.tending partiesadopting different aproaches to the solution of a de-bated problem. Hence, the advocacy approach mostfrequently combines with other approaches as, for ex-ample, in acid deposition control rnentioned tare-viously .

These few exam pies of approaches in action a t tes t ,on th.e ocie batid, to the ineffectiveness of pure ap-proaches and. on the other, co a trend towards hybridapproaches to environmental planning and decisionmaking. Recendy, a satisfying mentality seems togovern environmental planning approaches and ro betire core feature of approaches in the beconting. As aresult of a growing awareness among environmentalplanners and decision makers of the intractability,controversiality, and uncertainty of environmentalproblems, hybrids of participatory planning areadoptecl, reflecting an expanded view of environ-mental planning as being not only a technical exerciseof vieldin.g optimal solutions but also a means tobroaden 1:he social basis of environmental decisionmaking, reconcile opposing interests, manage uncer-tainty, educate the pubtic, and produce implemen cablesolutions. Whether they combine with. comprehensiveapproaches, accompany incrementalism, or comple-rnent adapcive approaches, the gist of these hybrid ap-proaches seems to be that without participation, nostep in. the planning process can be executed success-fully and effectively. Involvement of affected partiesstarts with early decisions on defining and boundingproblems, choosing methods of analysis, discu.ssing al-ternatives, and resolving differences of opinion duringthe various planning stages.

Evidence of tire growing popularity of hybrid part-


10/12

390. Briassouliscipatory planning approaches comes from many direc-tions. Many universities have specialized prograrns ondispute resolutionexclusivelv devoted to or in-cluding environmental issueswithin or in conjunc-tion with planning curricula (Bingham 1986). Manylocal and regional level development and en.viron-mental planning disputes have been resolved throughmediationMegotiation processes, and the agreementsreached ha.ve been incorporated n comprehensiveplan, regulations, impletnentation prograrns, etc.(Bingham 1986, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Sev-eral states have passecl laws encouraging or requiringthe use of medation and/or negotiation n resolvingdisputes o ver s i . ti .ng of fac i l it i es , c leve lopm ent o f coa .s ta land other environmentall y sensitive ateas, etc.(Bingham 1.986, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Afew important policy dialogues have demonstrated therelative merts of getting contending parties togetherin making important policy decisions on distributionalissues. Administrative agenciessuch as EPA andOSHAha.ve started experimenting with and ap-plying che idea of regulatory negotiation in prornui-gating tules and regulations en several, sometmeshighly controversial, environmental issues (Bingham1986, Susskind and Cru iksh.ank 1 .987) , Final ly , cer ta infirst stops towards che institutionalization of mediationand negotiation processes ha.ve p een taken at the stateand federal levels (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Itrernains for time to show whether these hybrid partici-patory/consensual approaches are more responsive,effective, and politically viable approaches to resolvingenvironmental problems.

Co n c lus io n sE nv ronm e ntal problems are tnetaproblems

(Cartwright 1973), that is co say, problems describedby a large number of variables, many o which are dif-fiesta ce operationalize unambiguously. This explainswhy the comprehensiverational approach to planningfor (hese problems did not pass che tests of suitahilryand political realism; neither did other "pure" ap-proaches, although each of them was sensitive roandaddressed different aspects of the problems studied.The approaches in action discussed represent chosenresponses to the perceived extent and intensty of mut-tifaceted environmental planning problems. In eachcase, elements of pure approaches combined to pro-duce a planning approach that responded co and re-flected the cension between the characteristics of theenvironmental problem considered and che capacity ofthe decision system to han.dle it. The present inquirydid :not intend and could not go into the details of

these approaches. Its purpose was ro provide thefratnework and groundwork for further systematic ex-plorations into the ways environmental problems areapproached and resolved,s possible, however, tosketch a future research agenda that i.s neecled to sup-plensent tisis study and to address additional researchq u es t i ons .

First, although the present study rnentionect casesof "pure" approaches and d'eh- combinations, it (lidnot tackle the specifics of those cases. Case studies ofsevera! environmental problems and their solutionsare needed in arder to examine, en the ene hand, howthe relative weight of che characteristics of theproblem, the decision setting, and the contributingdisciplines shaped the approach chosen to resabie theproblem., and on the other, to ascertain the existenceof the approaches described here.

Para.l.lei to case studies, or as a para of them, inca-sures of success of selected planning approaches ingiven problem situations need to he elaborated to an-swer che question of how well and how effectively thecharacteristics of approaches in action match che de-manda of the planning context.

Anocher research &cedan is towards the examina-non of cite influence of other factors on environ-mental planning approaches, such as the personalityfactor mention.ed in the beginning and the role of pro-fessional ethics, technology, and technological changeamong others.

Finaily, time has to be introduced explcitly into theanalysis of environmental planning approaches to ac-coma more satisfactorily for the dynamic of che plan-ning process. An intertemporal analysis can follow twodirections. First, at che microlevel. of particular casestudies, changes in the approach followed fromproblem defintion to implementaban as well as mid-stream changes need to be observed, documented, andevaluated to identify the strong and weak points ofeach approach at each nage of the planning process.Second, at a tnacrolevel, analysis of the evolution ofenvironmental planning approaches since the 1960swill reveal how planning responses to environmentalproblems have changed over time with changes inperception and knowledge of environmental phe-nomena and changes in the sociacconomic and polit-i ca l c l imate .

Despite the considerable progress made in the fieldof environmental planning slice its appearance in the1960s in terms of philosophical, economic, technical,scientific, and political analysis of environmentalproblems, development of methods and techniques,elahoration of policies, and practical applications, thebody of environmental pl.anning theory is still meager.


11/12

Environmental Planning Approaches91Contrihutions from hoth theoreticians and practi-tioners are necessary to bring the field as a whole tomaturity.Li te ra ture Ci tedAmy, D. J. 1987. The politics of environmental mecliation.

Columbia University Press, New York.Anderson, R. F., and M. R. Greenberg. 1982. Hazardouswaste facility siting: A role for planners. /arma/ of the Am er-ican Planning . A ssociat ion 48(2).204-218.Bacow, L. S., and M, Wbeeler. 1984. En.vironmental dispute

resolution. Plenum Press, New York.Benvertiste, G. 1981. Regulation and planning: The case of

environmental politics. Boyd and Fraser, San Francisco,Ca l i forn ia .Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environrnental disputes. The

Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.Botan, R. S. 1967. Ernerging views of planning. Journal of theAmerican Intitule of Planners 33(4):233-245.Carcwright, T. J. 1973. Problems, solutions, and strategies: A

contribution to the theory and practice of planning. jounutiof the A merican Insti tute of M arinen 39(3).179-187.Crenson, M. 1971. The unpolitics of air pollution. JohnHopkins Press, Balcintore, Maryland.Daly, H. E. 1983. The steady sta.te econorny. Pages 237-252

in T. O'Riordan and R. K. Turner (eds.), An annotatedreader in environmental planning and management. Per-pulen Press, Oxford.

Daneke, O. A.. 1983. An ada.ptive-learning approach to envi-ronmental regulation. Policy S tudies R eview 3(1):7-12.

Davidoff, P., and T. A. Reiner. 1973. A choice theory ofplanning. Pages 11-39 in A. Falud (ed.), A reader inplanning theory. Pergartion Press, Oxford.

Deknatel, C. Y. 1983. Choices of orientation in teaching envi-ronmental pla.nning. Journal of Planning Education and Re-search 3(2) :118 -125.

Eagles, P. F. J. 1984. The planning and management of envi-tonmentally sensitive arcas. Longman, London,

Ednuinds, S. W. 1981. Environmental pcilicy: Bounded ratio-riality applied ro unbounded ecological prohleins.D. E. Mann (ed.), Environmental policy formation. Lex-ington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.

Faludi, A, 1987. A decsion-centered view of environmentalplanning. Pergarnon Press, Oxford.

Gligg, N. S. 1985. Water resources planning. McGraw-Hill,New York.

Haskell, E. 1971. New directions in state environmental plan-ning-. Journal of the A rnoican Int i tule of Planners 37(4):253-258..

Healy, R. G., and. Zinn, J. A. 1985. Environment and devel-opment conflicts in coastal zone management. Journal of theA m erican Institute of Planners 51(3).299-311.Hotling, C. S. (ecl.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assess-

mera and management. John Wiley, New York.House, P. W. 1976. The quest for complereness. LexingtonBooks , L e xington, Ma ssa c huse t t s .

Hudsort, B. M. 1970. Cornparison of current planning theo-ries: counierparts and contradictions. Journal of the A m er.kan Intitule of Planners 45(4):387-398.

lsard, W. 1972. Ecologic-econornic analysis for regional de-velopment. The Free Press, New York.

Kartez, J. D. 1984. Crisis response planning: Toward a con-t in.gent analysis. Journal of the A m erican Inst i tute of Planners50(1):9-21.

Kinsey, D. N. 1985. lessons from the New Jersey coastalmanagement program. Journal of the A m erican Inst i tuir; ofPlatine1u 51(3):330-336.

Kicsos, T. R. 1985. Coasta l manag em ent pi->li t ics : A view fromCapitol Hill. Journalof he A m er ican Ins t itu t e o f Planners51(3).275-287.

Kneese, A. V,, R. U. Ayres, and R. C. D'.Arge. 1970. Eco-nomice and the environment. John Hopkins Press, Balti-more, Maryland.

Lindblom, C. E. 1973. Incrementalism and environmenta-lism. In Nacional conference on tnanaging the environ-ment. Final Report. Washington, DC: Washington Envi-ron.mental Research Cerner, US Environmental ProtectionA g e n c y .

Mann, D. E. 1981. Introduction. Pages 1-27 inD. E. Mann(ed.), Environmental policy forrnation. Lexington Books,L e xington, Ma ssa c huse t t s .

Mann, D. E. 1982. Introduction.. Pages 1-20 inD . E. Ma nn(ed.), Environmental policy implernentation. LexingtonBooks , L e xington, Ma ssa c huse t t s .

Matuszeski, W. 1985. Managing the federal coastal program:The planning yeaa, Journal of the A merican Planning A ssoci-ation 51(3):266-274.

McGrath, D. C., Jr. 1971. Multidisciplinary environmentalanalysis: Jamaica Bar and Kennedy Airport. Journal of theA m erican Institute of Planners 37(4).243-252.

McHarg, 1. 1969. Design with nat.ure. The Natural HistoryPress, Carden Cty, New York.

Mernitz, S. 1980. Mediat ion of e nv i r onm e n t a l disputes: Asourcebook. Praeger Publishers, New York.

Malear, J. J., and D. L. Rogers. 1982. Intetorganizational co-ordination in en vironrnental management: process,strategy, and objective..Pages 95 - 108 in D . E. Marn (ed.) ,Environtimental policy tinplementation. Lexington Books,L e xington, Ma ssa c huse t t s .

O 'Connor , E. 1978. Planning u nder uncer ta in ty. The Con-ference Board, Inc., New . York.O wens, W. 1985. Coas ta l man agem ent in Nont i Carol ina :Build ing a regional consensus . laumui t of the A m erican Plan-ning A ssociat imi 51(3).322-329.Perry, R. W. 1979. incentves for evacuatiort in natural dis-aster. urna/ of the A merican Planning A ssociation 48(4):440-447.Peta.k, W. J. 1980. Environtnental planning and manage-

ment.: The need for an incegrative perspective. Environn-m ental Managem ent 4(4):287-295.Pla . t t , R. H. 1 982 . The Ja c kson F lood of 1 979: A pub l ic pol ic ydisaster. Journal of the A m e r ic a n Planning A ssociat ion

48(2).219-231.


12/12

392. E3r iassoul isPlatt. R. H. 1984. The planner and nuclear crisis relocation,journal o f th.e A merican Planning A ssociation 50(2):259-260.Rabe, 13, G. 1986. Fragmentation and integration in state en-

vironmental management. The Conservation Fou.ndation,Washington, DC.Rosenbaum, W. A. 1985. Environmental f.)olitics and policy.

Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, DC.Salisbury, R., and J. Heinz. 1970. A theory of policy analysis

and some prelirninarv applicatiort. Pages 39-50 in 1. Shar-ka nsky ( e d . ) , Pol ic y a na lys i s in pol i t i t2 .1 s c ie nc e , M a rkha mPublishing Company, Chicago.Schneider, R., and E. Tohn. 1985. Success in negotiating en-

virontnental regulations. .Environmetual . Im p a c t A s s e s sm e n tR ec ' i ew 5(1) :67- 78.

Shirvani., H., and Stepner, M. 1986. San Diewa's environ-mental planning process: Ten years tater. journal of theAni i .v ican Plann ing A ssociation 52(2):212-219.Susskind, L, and J. Cruikshank. 1987. 13rea.king che imp asse.Basic Books, Ne. w Y ork,Twiss, R. H. 1975. Nine approaches te) environmental plan-ning. Pages 235-272 inR. W. Burchell and D. Listokin(eds . .), Future Luid use. Center for Urbart Policy Research,RutgersThe State University, New Brunswick, New

Jersey.Willson, J. S., P, Tabas, and M. Henneman. 1970. Compre-hensive planning and the environment: A manual for

planners. Abt Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Ze le ny . M. 1 982 . Mul t ip le c r ic e r ia de c i s ion-ma king. Mc G ra w-

Hin Book Company, New York. ti

Documents

Briassoulis