INTRODUCTION
Note: this paper was published in the online journal, Practicing Planner, in September 2011. Be warned: If you are not a professional planner, the paper is likely to be boring beyond relief.
Creating spatial plans for local political
jurisdictions, business and educational campuses, military installations, or
other districts is, by its very nature, a complex endeavor characterized by
difficulties and uncertainties. To manage those challenges, planners apply a
variety of analytical approaches to the planning process. Some of those
approaches were originally created in disciplines related to urban and regional
planning. Others came from unrelated fields, such as finance and business, and
were modified to address planning needs. In either case, the nature of those
analytical efforts is to apply objective, rational procedures to help achieve
operational improvements.
As
applied to land-based planning, those approaches are characterized by various advantages
and disadvantages. The key for practicing urban and regional planners is to evaluate
various approaches and choose one that produces results that, in their judgment,
most effectively address the contextual needs of the client-community.
Professional
planners are familiar with one or more of the following acronyms used to
describe analytical techniques that have been applied to many urban planning
and community development projects throughout the United States
Table 1: Analytical Techniques Used in Urban Planning
Acronym
|
Analytical Technique
|
ABCD
|
Asset-Based
Community Development (Planning)
|
Assets,
Challenges, Opportunities, Threats
|
|
PIC
|
Problems,
Issues, Concerns
|
SWOO
|
Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Obstacles
|
SWOT
|
Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
|
Most
of those planning approaches focus on recognizing and building on strengths, skills,
and capacities to overcome the weakness, threats, or needs that are often said
to characterize a community or spatial district. Fundamentally, those
approaches foster the capacity to see, cultivate, and use asset-based or
strength-based characteristics the community may not have known or fully
realized it possessed or known how to apply those strength-based factors to its
benefit. Those methods are about seeing the world and approaching the planning
process from a position of internal strength rather than from one of perceived needs
or weaknesses. Those analytical approaches typically focus on and celebrate the
community’s (or other geographic district) positive characteristics rather than
on what is wrong or what supposedly requires repair or restoration before the
community can achieve a higher level of functionality.
I
believe those approaches contain significant difficulties that affect the
planning process and that may adversely influence potential outcomes. Typically,
those approaches ignore or fail to fully recognize and develop the complex interrelationship
between constraints and opportunities and the multi-faceted effects of
constraint analysis and mitigation on development suitability. In this paper, I
present a new constraint-based approach to spatial planning that constitutes an
alternative to asset-based, SWOT-based, and needs-based models. Although
analysis of constraints has played key roles in business/management and
scientific endeavors, to this point it has been applied infrequently to fields
related to urban planning.1
The
Constraint-Based Planning Process that is proposed to guide development of spatial
plans2 as described below is an integrated, problem-solving analytical
tool. That Process is summarized diagrammatically below in Figure 1. Please
note that this paper focuses only on the first three phases in that Process
since the unique aspects of the proposed technique are most fully developed in
those segments. Other phases required in that planning process, and illustrated
for informational purposes in Figure 1, are not part of this discussion. Those excluded
phases are:
- Phase 4 — Basis of Planning/Planning Drivers
- Phase 5 — Development Alternatives
- Phase 6 — Preferred Alternative
- Phase 7 — Land-Based Plan/Implementation Strategy
PHASE 1: SETTING THE STAGE
The
materials in this section examine in some detail the three initial planning
phases that are critical to Constraint-Based Planning. In order to move forward
in creating a land-based plan, a community must first establish an open public
involvement effort to ensure the resulting plan incorporates citizen/stakeholder
input throughout the planning process. The foundation for that step is best
laid in the Request for Proposals issued by the client/community in setting the
required performance parameters that will inform the entire planning process.
The
next step in the initial phase is to articulate the community’s vision of the
future and the mission of the client with respect to that future. That
visioning process, in which a clear visualization of the range of possibilities
and development of the guiding vision statement will be articulated, constitutes
the framework on which the community’s future will be built.
Only
then can overall planning process goals that will shape future planning and
development scenarios be created. Once those primary goals have been
established, the community then must determine how to bridge the gap between
current realities and the vision by identifying specific project-related goals
that characterize varying stages in the plan. For each of those secondary goals
the community then must specify precise and obtainable objectives, tasks, and
priorities that can be monitored and evaluated. The five major elements comprising
Phase 1 are:
- Public Involvement (Citizens/Stakeholders)
- Vision and
- Overall Planning Process Goals
- Specific Project-Related Goals
- Objectives/Tasks/Priorities
PHASE 2: REALITY CHECK
The
second phase involves collecting detailed information on the area’s historical
development and analyzing the present situation with respect to existing
conditions, issues, and trends. The critical aspect of what I term a “Reality
Check” is not to focus most of the planning team’s efforts on data collection
but to organize/position relevant data as the launch pad for the analysis
component. A web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) is proposed as the
key organizational and analytical tool for the Constraint-Based Planning
process. That system should be in place and functional prior to the start of
the data collection effort.
Each
individual data element should be discussed carefully, spatially characterized,
and rank ordered with respect to the vision and overall project goals
established previously. Those efforts should be part of the public involvement
process, with the public fully engaged in each task. Then, the implications of each
specific task with respect to its potential effects on the planning process must
be documented, mapped, and analyzed. An example would be the effects of one-way
traffic flows in a specified area on local traffic operations, site accessibility,
connectivity, safety, and neighborhood functionality.
Materials
developed in this Phase, which constitute the critical local or regional
community characteristics (many principal elements are listed below in Table 2),
will become the basis of the work performed in Phases 3 through 7. Please note
that the following list is meant to be suggestive of topics to be investigated
and is not all-inclusive.
Table 2: Data Gathering/Analysis Elements
Major Element
|
Sub-Element
|
Socioeconomics
|
Demographic
Variables
|
Income
Characteristics
|
|
Crime
Rates
|
|
Physical
Infrastructure/Rights-of-Way
|
Transportation/Circulation
|
Utilities
|
|
Social
Infrastructure
|
Education
|
Public/Quasi-Public
Institutions
|
|
Police/Fire/Emergency
Services
|
|
Community
Facilities and Services
|
Parks and
Recreation
|
Other
Services
|
|
Building
Conditions (Specified Sub-Districts)
|
|
Environmental
Features
|
Open
Space
|
Water/Wetlands
|
|
Topography/Slope
|
|
Sub-Surface
Conditions
|
|
Habitat
|
|
Endangered
Species
|
|
Hazardous/Toxic/Radiological
Wastes
|
|
Weather/Climate
|
|
Housing
Characteristics
|
Public
|
Private
|
|
Quasi-Private
(subsidized)
|
|
Regulatory
and Legal Systems
|
Zoning
|
Land Use
|
|
Restrictive
Covenants
|
|
Lands
with Protected Status
|
|
Others
(as appropriate)
|
|
It
is important to note that the participation of community citizens and stakeholders
could potentially be more influential in the planning process if their input
was empowered by a system that presented easy to understand visual images that
showed the nature, location, and extent of each element that affected the plan,
beginning with the Reality Check. Implementation of a web-based Geographic
Information System (GIS) is a critical element of Constraint-Based Planning for
numerous reasons, including its geospatial integration of appropriate data,
analytical tools, and powerful visualization/presentation capabilities. But,
GIS is much more than an efficient technical tool since it plays a key role in
a collaborative citizen/stakeholder involvement effort in which incorporating
public feedback in each step of the plan is an integral part of the process.
I
believe that a GIS is the most appropriate geospatial mapping tool to
accomplish that task because it enables construction of a number of
geographical layers that, when overlain, produce a visual representation of
areas that show geospatial relationships between and among a variety of data elements
and, later in the planning process, constraints to opportunities and the
varying potentials of specific areas for future development or growth. As an essential
part of the planning process, a GIS map inventory and evaluation of existing
natural and man-made development would be prepared in the Reality Check Phase with
construction of a geodatabase. Layers contained in that database should include
a variety of vector and raster data, such as slope, elevation, environmental
elements, surface and subsurface drainage, transportation, structures,
utilities, boundaries, and various regulatory data — including land use,
zoning, parcel characteristics, building condition, etc. — as well as remotely
sensed imagery, data from tabular databases, digitally scanned property
records, GPS coordinates, and geo-referenced site or area photographs as appropriate.
Recent
desktop applications provide the capability to seamlessly interact with the
above types of geographic information as data layers on a 3D globe. Using
ArcGIS 3D Analyst 9, Map 3D, and similar software, the consultant can introduce
a revolutionary technology that enables citizens/stakeholders to visualize in
three dimensions geographic data from a local or global perspective. For
example, citizens/stakeholders can see what a proposed 12-story building might
look like in a neighborhood with low-rise structures in terms of height above
the existing skyline, facades, shadow effects throughout the day, whether views
are obstructed, etc. That technique has the ability to stimulate intense public
discussion and generate additional development options through the public
involvement process.
A
GIS links data observations and measurements to specific locations and
indicates actual or inferred relationships between data points. A GIS can also
pull together different types of data and allow quantitative analysis at whatever
scale is specified in the plan, whether large-scale — showing individual
sites/parcels — or a smaller scale presenting a district or even the entire
cityscape. For example, information on soils, water resources, habitat, and
vegetation might be combined in analyses of wildlife habitat needs. That same
data set could be used in determining constraints and opportunities for the
restoration of damaged ecosystems or for the potential of land to be developed
for a variety of urban uses.
GIS
also facilitates the integration of remotely-sensed images, such as collected
by Landsat or aerial photography, with data gathered through more traditional
techniques, such as census data or field surveys. And it permits extrapolation
from limited sample locations to larger areas. Because of its ability to handle
complex analyses at varying geographic scales, GIS has become an indispensable
tool for land use planners and forms an essential part of constraint-based
analysis and the public involvement program.
PHASE 3: CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS
Brief Definitions
A
constraint restricts the degree of freedom urban planners, client staff, and citizens/stakeholders
have in providing solutions within the setting of a land-based plan. Thus,
constraints are limitations that inhibit the way a plan can be developed and
implemented. Constraints in the context of urban planning can be economic,
environmental (natural and built), financial, infrastructure, legal
(regulations and ordinances), political, social, or technical and pertain to
project resources, schedule, mutual exclusions, conditional effects of actions,
precedence relationships between activities, or other limitations to the system
itself.
An
opportunity is a suitable condition or combination of suitable conditions or an
advantageous, favorable, or suitable circumstance or combination of
circumstances and time (schedule) that promotes progress or advancement. Like
constraints, opportunities in the context of urban planning can be economic,
environmental (natural and built), financial, infrastructure, legal
(regulations and ordinances), political, social, or technical and pertain to
project resources, schedule, a specified environment, or other limitations to
the system itself.
Both
constraints and opportunities may be characterized by major type, such as those
that are resource-based (environmental) and non-resource-based (socioeconomic
or cultural). In this paper I refer to those types respectively as Biogeophysical
and Cultural. Typically, Biogeophysical Constraints/Opportunities are physical
in nature, such as slope, topography, wetlands and waterways, surface and
subsurface conditions, natural and man-made hazards, vegetation zones, wildlife
habitat, view sheds, etc. Cultural Constraints/Opportunities include legal,
regulatory, policy, institutional, demographic, timing/scheduling, and
financial and budgetary concerns, etc.
By
their nature, land planning projects are characterized by significant amounts
of spatial information. Geographic Information Systems are capable of managing
and manipulating large quantities of spatially related information, integrating
multiple data layers, and deriving additional information. That evaluation is
capable of incorporating such Biogeophysical Constraints as topography, surficial
and bedrock geology, groundwater conditions, and historic geologic hazards with
such Cultural Constraints as archaeological and historical resources, land
use-zoning-site-building restrictions, and urban/suburban land-use data that
are categorized according to the types of use and projects planned.
Multi-criteria analysis would then be performed to evaluate the suitability of a
specified location for each development alternative according to appropriately
measured and weighted factors.
Constraints before Opportunities
Information
developed in the Reality Check phase of a spatial planning project leads
directly to the identification of constraints and opportunities. Please note
that the word order in the title of Phase 3 provides a critical clue as to the
nature of the analysis. In planning for facilities, sites, or larger geographic
areas, constraints — also variously referred to as obstacles, obstructions,
weaknesses, disadvantages, restrictions, conflicts, problems, needs, issues,
limitations, or challenges — must always be considered before opportunities.
The
old adage, Know Your Weaknesses,
applies directly to constraints and to spatially-based planning. If strengths
or assets were the first order of business and the key focus of analysis,
planners and citizens/stakeholders involved in a planning process would start
by identifying potentially beneficial situations for development only to find
out later that those situations may be limited or adversely influenced by one
or more restrictive factors and could not play the role that was initially
anticipated.
Dealing
with significant constraints encourages and even forces those involved in the
planning process to focus on identifying creative, purpose-driven solutions.
Few planning professionals or committed citizens/stakeholders are willing to
throw their hands up in frustration and leave in place a significant constraint
that could adversely affect the outcome of the planning process and the future
of the entire community without first expending considerable effort to find
appropriate mitigation options.
Consequently,
many experienced planners adopt what amounts to a
turn-your-weaknesses-into-strengths position: “Show me a constraint and I’ll
show you an opportunity.” Thus, even in the act of accepting a constraint,
planners may be rewarded with an opportunity. That position is only a seeming
paradox because the act of confronting constraints and understanding their
salient characteristics can become the very source of creative solutions.
An
in-depth understanding of the complex interrelationships between constraints
and opportunities is the foundation from which development alternatives are
created and on which the resulting plan is based. If those relationships are
inadequately addressed at the beginning of the analysis, planners have little
chance to recover without extensive back-tracking and re-work.
The
primary elements and sub-elements comprising Phase 3 are listed below in Table
3. All three primary elements contain explanatory narrative and multiple GIS map
overlays.
Table 3: Constraints/Opportunities Analysis
Primary Element
|
Sub-Element
|
Constraints
Analysis
|
Biogeophysical
and Cultural Constraints
|
Constraints
Continuum (Ranking Process)
|
|
Mitigation
Strategies (for each identified constraint/sub-constraint)
|
|
Opportunities
Analysis
|
Biogeophysical
and Cultural Opportunities
|
Opportunities
Continuum (Ranking Process)
|
|
Development
Suitability
|
|
Constraint-Opportunity Relationships
The
following materials elucidate the nature of constraint-opportunity relationships.
Owing
to their nature, constraints are limiting factors in whatever environment is
under examination, whether biogeophysical, cultural, or varying combinations of
both. Therefore, in identifiable ways constraints adversely affect those environments
and restrict subsequent opportunities with respect to development and other
planning and design-related actions.
Although
constraints range from minor to nearly absolute, upon close examination they also
may present significant development opportunities. Frequently, constraints can
be mitigated in whole or in part so that they can be developed into short- or
long-term benefits to the environment in question and thus become development
opportunities. For example, if a large rock outcrop poses a major constraint to
building or roadway construction, it may form an opportunity for development as
a natural resource element that can be integrated into other adjacent landscape
features, such as open space, greenways and nature trails, pedestrian walkways
and bikeways, physical training trails, or as a visual buffer. Or that outcrop
may serve as a platform on which to exhibit large-scale art, such as an exhibit
presenting permanent or temporary sculpture. In other words, if constraints are
carefully analyzed and their natures and characteristics fully understood, they
may be altered or transformed into competitive advantages and opportunities and
be fully integrated into the planning process.
Through
an in-depth analysis of the nature of each constraint, planners and
citizens/stakeholders may be able to creatively transform that adverse condition,
turning it into an opportunity to accomplish the desired end in a totally
different and previously unforeseen manner. In other words, opportunities may
in fact be generated by constraints through a creative planning process. In
short, what may initially be seen as a disadvantage may indeed become
advantageous.
Constraint Analysis
Organizing
the planning process around constraint analysis not only gives planners the freedom
to be less cautious and take greater risks, but also, and perhaps most
importantly, encourages all those involved in the planning effort to consider cutting
edge ideas and themes outside narrow but more traditional approaches. That exploration
of a wider and less predictable range of potential solutions is beneficial
because it leads planners and citizens/stakeholders outside their comfort zones
and into unchartered territory.
Implicit
in the constraint analysis is the potential for a specific constraint to be
decomposed or deconstructed into component variables, some or all of which may
be addressed individually. That deconstruction may result in identification of
a series of mitigating techniques that could alter the nature of the
sub-constraints or the ways in which they may affect the planning process.
Deconstruction and mitigation of individual sub-constraints may also result in
such substantial alteration of the parent issue that that constraint may be
effectively neutralized or transformed into a previously unrecognized
opportunity.
The
process of analyzing a constraint may also reveal interrelationships (either
previously known or unsuspected) with seemingly dissimilar or unconnected constraints.
As a result, a specified mitigation technique may positively affect multiple
other constraints. Thus, determining connectivity between or among constraints
and subsequent connectivity with regard to mitigation techniques should be a
goal of constraint analysis.
Also
implicit in the analysis is that not all constraints are equal in terms of
potential adverse effects on the planning process if not appropriately
mitigated. It should be recognized that certain constraints have major
implications and others have adverse effects that range in significance from minor
to moderate. That recognition leads to a ranking or weighting along a Constraints Continuum that reflects how individual
constraints can potentially affect the vision, goals, and priorities
established in Phase 1.
As
stated previously, one of the main goals of this planning process is a public involvement
effort open to all citizens/stakeholders. Therefore, it is critical that that
ranking procedure be conducted as an integral part of the participation effort
and that analytical measures of low to moderate complexity are used wherever
possible rather than such cutting edge techniques as regression analysis or
even neural computing and evolutionary programming that are difficult for most citizens/stakeholders
and many planners to understand and use wisely. An initial ranking of
constraints — perhaps as simple as using low, moderate, and high values or a
more ambitious but easily understandable matrix of four or five variables to
which objective scores have been assigned — may be performed by the consultant
team working closely with client staff. That initial ranking would then be presented
to a workshop of citizens/stakeholders who, in conjunction with the consultant
and client staff, would prepare the final ranking of constraints. Because higher
points would be awarded to potential development that has fewer constraints and
greater opportunities, it is possible to assign priority evaluations for
individual projects and areas. How that process actually would function is
treated in more detail below in the section on Development Suitability/GIS
Analysis.
Consequently,
the constraints weighting or ranking process will also reflect the imperative
for planners and citizens/stakeholders to address appropriate mitigation
strategies, especially for those constraints that have the highest potential
for adversely affecting the community’s functioning and its future. Creating
innovative and targeted mitigation strategies not only requires application of
traditional planning concepts but also innovative or outside-the-box approaches
to design and development.
The
constraint type (Biogeophysical or Cultural) and its spatial characteristics
must also be considered in the ranking process since they may influence various
strategies that may be applied to mitigate potentially adverse effects. For
example, a seismic hazard zone in a densely populated urban area should be
dealt with in a different manner than the same hazard zone located in a
sparsely settled district with few buildings and little infrastructure.
Once
constraints are catalogued, analyzed, and their effects on the biogeophysical
and cultural environments and the planning process made explicit, opportunities
for growth and development can then be identified and examined. Consciously
choosing to analyze and understand the nature and specific attributes of
constraints before looking at opportunities presents planners with the
potential of developing more powerful and productive insights. The effort to
resolve those difficulties typically leads to a deeper understanding of the
spatial context in which planning is performed.
Role of Mitigation Strategies
Development
of the constraint analysis leads to the identification of mitigation strategies
and the critical question concerning how constraints are mitigated or turned into
opportunities. To put it another way, in an urban planning context the question
is whether it is possible to systematize the mitigation or transformation of
constraints into opportunities. I believe that systemization is possible and
propose the following operational elements to guide that process.
First,
each constraint should be identified within the context of a specific category of
the Reality Check Phase, such as socioeconomics or physical environment.
Second,
the precise nature and relevant spatial and non-spatial characteristics of the
constraint must be analyzed and understood. For example, if the constraint is environmental
in nature, such as a seismic hazard zone, its key attributes must be
established through search of available documents, data, or interviews with
recognized authorities. Those attributes should include location, size,
geographic extent, event severity (high, medium, and low), event periodicity, past
and potential effects on surrounding uses or facilities, and planning implications,
etc.
Third,
the analysis then must determine if the constraint can be deconstructed into
component parts that can be examined separately. That analysis may lead to the
identification of sub-constraints, ranging from minor to major, that are
subject to mitigation.
The
fourth element is to establish the precise manner in which the constraint may
affect the planning process and the community’s
vision, mission, goals, objectives, and priorities. That step certainly is
one of the most important aspects of the analysis. The potential implications
of each constraint and sub-constraint must be addressed in specific detail so
that a comprehensive range of mitigation strategies that are appropriate with regard
to the future can be identified and explored.
Fifth,
the various identified mitigation strategies should contain solutions that will
accomplish the following:
- Eliminate, transform, alter, buffer, exploit, or
block adverse effects of the constraint or otherwise optimize its positive
aspects.
- Identify alternative actions that will
neutralize or modify the constraint.
- Reduce or eliminate long-term risk and adverse
effects for people and property affected by the constraint.
- Meet development needs in a sustainable manner
by maintaining the health and integrity of the biogeophysical or cultural
environments being considered.
Sixth,
it is critical to note that in considering and selecting the most appropriate
mitigation strategies, it may be necessary to analyze sequentially the effects
of specific individual mitigation strategies on an individual constraint. For
example, the first mitigation strategy may buffer one specific type of adverse
effect but not others. The second mitigation strategy may reduce several of the
risks not mitigated by the first strategy but may not affect additional adverse
conditions. Consequently, a range or variety of mitigation strategies should be
identified and examined in detail until the maximum positive outcome is
obtained. As a result, individual constraints may be moderated or ameliorated
by multiple mitigation strategies, not merely one. That point is especially
pertinent when the specific constraint being analyzed is complex and may be
deconstructed into numerous components, each of which may feature distinctive
elements that can be mitigated individually, or when the constraint is related
to other constraints.
Mitigation Strategies and Public
Involvement
Creation
of mitigation strategies is the essential function that connects constraints to
opportunities and therefore is a crucial element in the Constraint-Based
Planning Process. Conceptualization and discussion of those strategies must
take place within the context of the public involvement effort. The precise
manner in which that creative procedure occurs should, at minimum, be addressed
by consultant teams after receipt of the Request for Proposals in the proposal preparation
stage. But, in my opinion, the necessity to integrate those strategies into the
public involvement effort is sufficiently critical to be specified by the client
in the official scope of work contained in the request for proposals issued to
qualified firms.
Naturally,
the consultant team should have the experience and expertise to identify and propose
mitigation solutions appropriate to individual constraints. However, residents
and other local stakeholders know their communities in ways outsiders never can
or will, no matter how detailed their experience or expertise. The input of citizens/stakeholders
to the creation of mitigation strategies constitutes a significant element that
must not be minimized.
Therefore,
my strong recommendation is for the constraint mitigation strategy process to
occur in citizen involvement workshops led by the consultant team/client staff.
Even if no specific mitigation strategies are proposed by citizens/stakeholders
in the workshop(s) that have not been identified previously through the efforts
of the consultant (which is possible but in my experience more than somewhat unlikely),
their participation in that effort creates buy-in that otherwise would be
difficult to generate. For that reason alone conducting the mitigation strategy
workshop(s) with citizens/stakeholders is a key tool in Constraint-Based Spatial
Planning.
Development Suitability/GIS Analysis
One
of the main challenges facing urban/regional planners is how to actively engage
the public in the land use planning decision-making process. As has been noted
previously in this paper, I believe that the public involvement effort begins
at the very initial stage of a spatial plan. But, since most members of the
public have little training or professional expertise in the minutia of the
planning process, the real challenge is to identify and employ techniques that
are relatively simple to understand yet have genuine analytical and explanatory
power.
Incorporation
of GIS as an analytical tool in the planning process allows citizens/stakeholders
to quickly access existing conditions, constraints, opportunities, and
development suitability maps to determine potential uses for land anywhere in
the community. For most citizens/stakeholders, that proposed level of involvement
in the planning process provides an unparalleled opportunity to have direct
input into their community’s future because geospatial information provides a
snapshot of what the community looks like now and, more importantly, what it
might look like in the future given certain inputs. Specifically, that
information is invaluable in the planning process in assisting planners and the
public in determining where new development and re-development can be
encouraged or discouraged, or where new services will be needed. By using GIS
overlays of varying citizen/stakeholder land use preferences, the locations
where those preferences conflict in the present and future can be identified
and the nature of the conflicts can be analyzed and mitigated.
If
the specific planning project allows the consultant to use a web-based GIS and circulate
maps via the Internet, citizens/stakeholders would be able to provide almost
instant feedback at every critical stage in the planning process, making it
possible to record and publish citizen/stakeholder data online, including positive
and negative comments and questions. GIS would then be used to create a number
of the highest ranked development scenarios and to generate maps that show
citizens/stakeholders what each course of action would look like, where it
would be located on the ground, the people and areas it would affect most
directly, and how it would help move the community in a positive direction.
GIS
scenario analysis can demonstrate the effects of applying different priority
levels to specified projects or locations. For example, in certain opportunity
areas development priorities ranging from higher to lower may be assigned to
economic uses or to mixed use development. Subsequently, those areas can then
be assigned a different development priority, such as environmental
sustainability. The outcomes of combining those different priority assignments
and others would then be included in the public participation effort. Potential
conflicts in proposed resource use, for example between specialty agriculture (such
as high value flowers in western Maricopa County, Arizona) and encroaching
urban or suburban uses (residential/retail/office), can be mapped and described
using a GIS system that combines biophysical and socio-economic characteristics
for land use evaluation. A multi-criteria evaluation tool can be developed to
support decision-making in terms of potential trade-offs between and among
different stakeholder interests over time.
A
full range of development opportunities should also be identified and mapped in
the planning area. Those opportunities may be Biogeophysical or Cultural in
nature. Biogeophysical Opportunities may include level ground with soils that
are capable of bearing loads or potable quality water in underground aquifers
in sufficient quantities for human consumption. Cultural Opportunities may result
from local policies or regulations or arise from land use relationships and
adjacencies, such as locating aviation-related uses like Fire/Rescue or
aircraft maintenance in close proximity to hangers, aprons, taxiways, or
runways on an airfield. A key point is that specific conditions that have the
potential of becoming beneficial can only be identified and mapped as
opportunities suitable for development if the community has or will have in the
foreseeable future the capacity (internal resources) to take advantage of those
conditions.
Planning-related
constraints and opportunities mapped as part of the previous analysis should
lead directly to the identification of locations as being suitable, partially
suitable, or unsuitable for various types of development. That Development
Suitability Map then becomes the foundation for the next phases that guide the
land use planning and decision-making process, especially Planning Drivers, Basis
of Planning, and Development Alternatives that lead directly to the draft and
final spatial plans.
That
mapping step involves compiling a list of factors that restrict or encourage future
development. Once the list of those factors has been developed, weights need to
be assigned to each negative or beneficial limitation. After the factors have
been identified and weighted, conducting the analysis is a fairly simple
process with the use of GIS software. A layer can be created for each factor. That
process builds up a number of separate data layers to produce a visual
representation of geographical areas that demonstrate more or less potential
for future growth or redevelopment. Each layer can then be assigned a score
depending on the degree to which the constraint or opportunity is likely to
limit or benefit future development. A final constraints map, which overlays
all constraints within the study area, is produced using GIS and a grid-based
data model. A final opportunities map should also be produced to show areas
with greater or partial opportunity. The combined constraints and opportunities
map would then identify areas that have:
- Fewest to greatest constraints that cannot be
mitigated
- Fewest to greatest opportunities (ranked primary,
secondary, marginal)
- Range of opportunities to constraints (highest
to lowest)
Use
of GIS in a planning project that applies constraints analysis is an example of
“better information resulting in better decisions” by using geospatial data to
create maps that help determine whether constraints or opportunities are
related spatially and if a separate set of mitigation strategies can be
developed for two or more constraints or opportunities that may be geospatially
related. Questions critical to the success of the plan — such as is sufficient land
available for a given use or how much land is required to buffer a
controversial facility from sensitive receptors — can be modeled and the best
options identified through GIS and presented through the public participation
effort.
The
ability to interactively analyze and quickly view the available geospatial data
allows the consultant/client staff to engage in a series of highly informative
and productive citizen/stakeholder workshops and discussions throughout the
entire planning process and especially during the Development Suitability
Analysis. The complex task of creating a spatial plan may be democratized by
providing citizens/stakeholders easy access to public data and the means of
decision-making through a web-based GIS and also by giving them meaningful and functional
roles throughout the planning process.
Finally,
use of GIS as a tool to empower meaningful public involvement would largely
refute the cynical view that various elite power groups control the land use
decision-making process for their own benefit and the exclusion of the affected
citizenry and stakeholders who may view themselves as having little political power
or clout. Which is another reason to ensure that the Constraints-Opportunities
and Development Suitability Analysis process always be entirely open, and that
all professional players in the planning process — public officials and agency
staff as well as consultants — are knowledgeable and forthright about why and
how specific socioeconomic or biogeophysical factors may influence
on-the-ground planning decisions.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The
proposed Constraint-Based Spatial Planning process is an innovative integration
of several traditional elements common to many land-based planning techniques —
Public Involvement, Vision/Mission/Goal Setting, and Data Collection-Analysis —
with a new focus on Constraints Analysis, Mitigation Strategies, and Development
Suitability/GIS Analysis. That new approach involves a critical re-focusing
that demands all those involved in the planning process address goals and
objectives, problems and solutions, policies, procedures, and evaluation
measures in a different way. That new approach encourages planners to engage in
the activities presented below in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary — Constraints-Based Planning Process
Major Elements
|
Sub-Elements
|
Document
the specific nature and relevant characteristics of individual constraints.
|
|
Employ
GIS to map and analyze existing conditions, land-based constraints, and
opportunities
|
|
Establish
the precise manner in which each constraint may affect the planning process
and the community’s vision, mission, goals, objectives, and priorities.
|
|
Rank
constraints along a continuum that reflects how individual constraints can
potentially affect the elements established in initial project phases —
vision, mission, etc.
|
|
Fully
explore the spatial nature of constraint-opportunity relationships and
specific ways those relationships may affect the planning process.
|
|
Deconstruct
constraints into sub-components to facilitate mitigation.
|
|
Select
mitigation strategies containing solutions that would:
|
Eliminate,
transform, and block adverse effects of each constraint
|
Optimize
the constraint’s positive aspects and reduce long-term risk and adverse
effects for people and property
|
|
Meet
development needs in a sustainable manner by maintaining the health and
integrity of the biogeophysical or cultural environments being considered.
|
|
Provide
the following GIS maps in the Development Suitability Analysis:
|
Constraints
that cannot be mitigated
|
Primary,
secondary, and marginal opportunities
|
|
The range
of opportunities to constraints (highest to lowest)
|
|
I
believe that the planning process proposed in this paper avoids numerous
potential pitfalls associated with other approaches by creating a tightly
interwoven decision-making fabric comprised of three principal components:
- In-depth public involvement throughout the
project that provides multiple opportunities for genuine and meaningful
input using a web-based GIS
- In-depth GIS overlay analysis of existing
conditions, issues, and trends
- GIS mapping and analytical techniques to help
determine the spatial components of constraints, opportunities, mitigation
strategies, and development suitability.
The
combined result is a powerful collaborative tool that, when applied
appropriately, can connect citizens/stakeholders with decision-makers and result
in dynamic solutions to complex urban and regional planning challenges. I also
firmly believe that, due to its inherent characteristics, appropriate
application of constraints analysis is not limited to the field of urban and
regional planning. This constraint-based technique may be employed profitably in
a wide range of spatially based and other endeavors, such as real estate management,
land development, community-based and economic development, transportation
project planning, infrastructure planning, natural resource and ecosystem
management, recreation planning, and emergency planning, etc.
Endnotes
1 One professional paper that addresses
constraint-based spatial planning, but without discussing the various interrelated
components, is that of Ronald Milam and Kendra Breiland, “A New Transportation
Planning Paradigm: Constraints-Based Planning in Response to the Continuing
Decline in Transportation Funds.” Practicing
Planner, September 29, 2009. Jeremy Frank and Ari Jonsson of the NASA Ames
Research Center Rome , Italy
2 Although Constraint-Based Planning may be applied to
any number of spatial projects, for the sake of simplicity in this paper I assume
that the project being described is a comprehensive plan prepared for a local political
jurisdiction.
3 It is important to realize that the initial
Vision/Mission Statement may be revised or amended as a result of feedback from
later phases in the planning process.
4 A number of the ideas presented in this section were
informed by a critical reading of János Kornai, (2007) By Force of Thought: Irregular Memoirs of an Intellectual Journey. Cambridge , MA
5 In Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s Theory of
Constraints, constraints
dictate system performance and if the goal is to increase that performance those
constraints must be identified and fully explored.
6 Not all cutting edge ideas are productive or
beneficial. But, exploration of potential solutions outside more traditional
approaches increases the chances of constraints being dealt with in creative
ways that may not have been considered under other circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment