Ann L. Riley has an excellent chapter relating planning theory to watershed management. As a student in a planning department, I am surrounded by planners and planning jargon, but until today, I had not yet read anyone who could explicitly connect planning theory with watershed planning. Riley has made this connection by categorizing different watershed planning initiatives according to the planning school that the initiative adopted.
The school of comprehensive planning relies on rational methods, scientific objectivity and the completion of concrete goals. A comprehensive watershed plan will usually start with an exhaustive inventory of the biology, hydrology, soils, geology, industry, zoning etc… Comprehensive watershed plans tend to be expert driven and top down. This also makes them vulnerable to implosion during the implementation phase, without follow up, local resistance, and criticisms of “imposition” and “arbitrary government meddling”. Still, there are examples of successful comprehensive plans in unique circumstances, although Riley tends to favor more participatory approaches.
In contrast to comprehensive planning, incremental planners are more process oriented. Incremental planners look for a decentralized approach that is flexible and permits the integration of new information as it learned. Riley cites Abe Wolman who called watershed planning an "art rather than a science". The modus operandi of incremental planners fits with what ecologists are calling for to manage complex and variable systems under conditions of uncertainty. The incremental planning approach also matches the philosophy of adaptive management of learning by doing.
Then Riley discusses the community-based planning school and its offshoots such as advocacy planning, consensus planning and conflict resolution. Riley notes that, historically, these approaches were called “radical” planning. Of course, these methods have been so mainstreamed that the term “radical” is really a misnomer. After sharing Riley's clasification of community-based planners with colleagues here at the department, they disputed this simplification . It also strikes me that conflict resolution should be a central part of any planning process. Any good watershed planner should have basic skills in conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation and facilitation. These are the soft skills that can disentangle gridlock and catapult projects forward.
The trend is clearly toward more inclusive planning processes. Past mistakes with top down approaches are generating new hybridized models. I also feel that it would be a mistake to totally disregard any of the planning schools completely. They all have a contribution to make, and neither are they mutually exclusive. Different conditions probably call for different approaches. It would probably be wrong to approach watershed planning from a purely ideological perspective, and try to force a particular “school” onto a community. Rather, one should be aware of the pitfalls in each approach, and mix and match to construct an effective process.
No comments:
Post a Comment