CICEET News Release

Problem Analyses

CICEET conducted an intensive analysis of the technical and nontechnical contexts that impact the development and application of land use planning tools as they relate to coastal environmental report. The process and results of this analysis are presented below.

1. Coastal Management Challenge: Improve Land Use Planning to Protect Coastal Resources
     A. Problem Statement
     B. Toward a Solution
     C. Goals of Analysis
     D. Analysis Process

2. Preliminary Conclusions

3. Further Discussion

4. Appendices (PDFs)
     Appendix A: Literature, Reports, and Tools
     Appendix B: Detailed Analysis Process
     Appendix C: Tabulated Interview Responses

1. Coastal Management Challenge: Improve Land Use Planning to Protect Coastal Resources

A. Problem Statement
Land use decisions have a significant impact on natural resources. “Downstream” from all choices made upriver, coasts and estuaries are exceptionally sensitive to land development. The escalating population growth in coastal areas compounds this vulnerability, and makes strategic land use planning especially critical. In a 2004 survey* co-sponsored by the Coastal States Organization (CSO) and CICEET, better land use planning was identified as a top priority.

*For a list of literature, reports, and tools that CICEET evaluated during this analysis, see Appendix A.

B. Toward a Solution
The needs of coastal managers have always served as true north for CICEET’s Environmental Technology Development (ETD) program. In the past, we have identified those needs through national surveys, regional workshops, and conferences.

This year, using the subject of land use planning tools, we’ve taken our needs assessment a step further. CICEET is working with colleagues nationwide to clarify the social, political, and regulatory context of land use planning tools in support of coastal environments. Our goal is to clarify the technical and non-technical bottlenecks that obstruct the development and application of potential solutions. Since this analysis indicates that new or enhanced technologies could have a beneficial impact on these problems, CICEET is designing strategic funding opportunities to meet these needs.

These funding opportunities will be included in CICEET’s next RFP (to be released in fall, 2006). The usefulness of the projects targeted by this RFP currently is being vetted by a national survey of land use planning professionals and volunteers.

This document summarizes the process through which CICEET has (to date) analyzed the technical and non-technical bottlenecks related to land use planning tools. It outlines the preliminary conclusions that have been informed by this process, and presents the data collected thus far as a resource for the land use planning community.

C. Goals of Analysis
To better understand the bottlenecks that make it difficult for land use planners to balance economic growth with environmental and human health, CICEET conducted an in-depth analysis focused on the following questions:

1. What are the most significant bottlenecks preventing land use planners from making decisions that balance economic growth with environmental health?
2. Which technologies or capabilities—if created or disseminated more broadly—would improve the ability of planners to make decisions that protect natural resources?
3. What prevents the efficient use of such technologies or capabilities?
4. Which attributes of a planning tool are critically important to municipal and regional planners as they make these decisions?
5. What trends may impact needs and opportunities with regard to environmentally sustainable land use planning?
6. What is the best use of public funding to help land use planners make decisions that strike an optimal balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability?

D. Analysis Process
CICEET is using the following process* to develop a more com-prehensive understanding of the challenges surrounding the effective use of land use planning tools in support of coastal environmental health:
1. Partnership: CICEET partnered with the Non-Point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO), which has been teaching local land use officials, since 1991, about how land use im-pacts water resource quality.
2. One-on-one Interviews: CICEET conducted approximately 23 interviews with local decision makers, planning professionals and volunteers, planning educators, researchers, and technology suppliers from around the country.
3. Research: Follow-up research based on interviews is ongoing.
4. Intellectual Property Analysis: CICEET contracted an analysis of intellectual property issues related to land use management tools.
5. Funding Opportunity Development: Data from interviews, research, and intellectual property investigation was analyzed to inform a draft of funding opportunities.
6. Evaluation: A national survey of land use planning professionals and volunteers is underway. Participants are asked to evaluate and comment on the draft funding opportunities. The final funding opportunity will be informed by the results of the survey.
* For more on this process, see Appendix B.

2. Preliminary Conclusions
Although the analysis is not complete, distinctive trends* have emerged.
*Data that informed these conclusions and the following section on further discussion can be found in Appendix C.

Preliminary conclusion A: The making of land use planning decisions that lead to improved environmental health largely is not a technical or scientific problem.

None of the interviewees saw technology as a predominantly technical problem. Instead, our analysis identified a preponderance of non-technical factors that hinder environmentally sustainable land use decisions. Several relate to inadequate resources for land use planning, and the lack of political will to allocate more resources in this direction. Interviewees cited a lack of designated staff, a need for basic infrastructure like computers, limited access to information that would inform good choices, and an inability among local decision makers to achieve consensus on how land is to be used.

Preliminary conclusion B: As much as possible, funding to promote environmentally sustainable land use planning should take into account the capacity and training of end users, the evaluation and demonstration of technology, and the dissemination of results to planners, public citizens, and politicians.

Many interviewees noted that technology was outpacing planners’ ability to avail themselves of improved tools. To bridge this gap, interviewees suggested investment in programs to train regional and local planners; demonstration projects that evaluate competing approaches to land use decision making; the integration of the latest research into already popular planning tools; the creation of interoperable software modules dealing with coastal/estuarine issues; and a decision support tool that would help planners at any level ask the right questions in advance of land use decisions.

Preliminary conclusion C: Despite the non-technical bottlenecks, technology innovations could help planners make decisions to better protect environmental health and other identified community values.

Land use planners are almost always overworked and understaffed, a condition that greatly reduces their ability to seek and implement changes on their own. Most interviewees indicated that the effectiveness of technical approaches could be enhanced when accompanied by targeted training. They cited education-based efforts (e.g., by NEMO, Green Valley Institute) involving technical subjects that have had positive impacts, and certain technologies (such as tools to visualize alternative future scenarios) that can change cultural and political perspectives.

3. Further Discussion
The data gathered on some issues explored during this analysis did not lend itself to a preliminary conclusion. Instead, the responses given by interviewees were diverse, and at times, highly individual. The following questions remain largely unresolved and require further input from the land use planning community.

Is an easy-to-use and scientifically rigorous land use planning toolkit achievable?
The suggestions and opinions regarding technology objectives and attributes are not—at first blush—mutually exclusive. They can be represented as a tool package that is inexpensive, easy-to use, incorporates socioeconomic factors and visualization components, includes robust technical analysis capabilities, and is interoperable with other data sources and applications.

However, it isn’t clear that such a tool is realistically achievable. Many interviewees, for example, noted a trade-off between ease of use and scientific rigor in available tools. Some indicated that this wall could be broken down; others suggested it was insurmountable. What are the probabilities for overcoming this and other hurdles to integration? If they are low, which attributes should receive top priority in future technology development and application?

Can a consensus be reached on the status of data availability, preparation, and maintenance?
In general, the topic of data availability, preparation and maintenance elicited the most diverse set of responses from interviewees. Some indicated that lack of aerial imagery and/or the effort required to convert such imagery into useable baseline maps was a critical bottleneck. Others noted that combining datasets or “massaging” data to be compatible with various applications was a bottleneck. One respondent noted that CICEET’s primary goal should be to fund a translator language or tool to quickly enable the combination of different datasets in different applications. Still others believed that these data issues were relatively minor and that the trend is improving. Can a majority of opinion be reached on priority needs related to this issue?

How do emerging web-based applications compare with less affordable, more technically challenging land use tools?
Many free, web-based applications that allow users to access geospatial data are cropping up. Some of these tools even allow high-level functionality such as the ability to add or extract data from maps. Are we trading accuracy and effectiveness for ease of use? Is the potentially limited accuracy of these tools more desirable than more effective tools that are inaccessible to most users and therefore have very little impact?

How should CICEET prioritize suggestions for the ideal use of public funding that arose during this analysis?
Suggestions on how to maximize the yield from public investments in this issue ran the gamut from a “soup-to-nuts” approach to more surgical recommendations. These included:

Training: Augment capacities of training programs like NEMO.
Demonstration: Support demonstration projects that show results—such as environmental, economic, and aesthetic impacts—of land use planning approaches. Disseminate findings.
Improve Visualization and Modeling Tools: Integrate scientific analysis of specific coastal/estuarine processes into operational planning tools. If possible, make this interoperable so the module is not tied to one application or purpose.
Decision support system: Further disseminate, refine, or create a decision support system tool that guides planners from basic questions about community values and goals to specific approaches for obtaining objectives.
Translator Tool: Support the development of a tool that facilitates the combination of various datasets and applications.