Class 06 - 20 March 2006
Slide presentation by Sanyal, Wulfhorst, Cook, and Hollenhorst
Notes on "wicked problems"
Notes by Walter Steed, from
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORTATION, Nick Sanyal, Phil Cook, J.D. Wulfhorst, and Steve
Hollenhorst
The Social and Behavioral sciences comprise the application of
scientific methods to the sturdy of the human aspects of the world.
Considered non-linear and often called the “soft sciences” as contrasted
to the “hard sciences.”
Social Sciences consists of:
o
Psychology – Study of
individual behavior
o
Economics - Study of
choices
o
Social Psychology – Study of
people in groups
o
Sociology – Study of
institutions and processes
o
Anthropology – Study of both
physical and cultural characteristics
o
Political Sciences – Study
of political institutions
The Social Sciences provide measurements
and methods from the individual to groups
Question: How does Social Science apply
to the study of the Ring Road?
Must consider “perception” vs. “reality”
·
Is tolerance of error
cultural
·
Will a project disrupt
social networks
·
Does it change economic and
political inequities
·
Does it affect perception of
public health and safety
Question: What should role of science be
in public decision making?
Social Impact Analysis (SIA) can be used
to investigate:
·
Population impacts
·
Long-term/newcomer conflicts
·
Community/institutional
arrangements
·
Individual and family
impacts
·
Community infrastructure
needs
Three types of
Problems:
§
Simple – issues with
solutions
§
Complex – May agree on
definition of the problem but no consensus on solution
§
Wicked - High level of
conflict, little agreement on problem or solution, multiple systems
involved, temporal scales, open fluid political and unsolvable
Many “Myths” occur around SIA
§
It’s all just common sense
§
Measures and methods are
“fuzzy”
§
Impacts never will occur
§
Used to hijack projects
§
Project costs more than the
process is worth
Question: Why use SIA in transportation
planning? Because it is an integral part of sustainability.
Sustainable Solutions are at the confluence of Economically viability,
ecologically sound and socially desirable.
NEPA – National environmental Policy Act
of 1969 requires all agencies of the to utilize a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in
planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's
environment;” …
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 - The
Secretary of Transportation was required to promulgate regulations that
were:
“designed to assure that possible adverse
economic, social, and environmental effects relating to any proposed
project on any Federal-aid system have been fully considered in
developing such project, and that the final decisions on the project are
made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the
need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and
the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects and the
following:
(1) air, noise, and water
pollution;
(2) destruction or disruption of
man-made and natural resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion and
the availability of public facilities and services;
(3) adverse employment effects,
and tax and property value losses;
(4) injurious displacement of
people, businesses and farms; and
(5) disruption of desirable
community and regional growth.”
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Regulations require:
“(b) Alternative courses of action be
evaluated and decisions be made in the best overall public interest
based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient
transportation; of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of
the proposed transportation improvement; and of national, State, and
local environmental protection goals.”
Executive Order 12898 requires federal
actions for environmental justice for minority populations and low
income persons:
“…each Federal agency shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low income populations…"
FHWA Environmental
Policy Statement of 1994 created a framework to strengthen the linkage
between environmental policy and highway policy.
This policy statement is a formal
expression of the FHWA's commitment to the protection and enhancement of
our environment.
The term "environment" as used in the EPS
includes the natural environment, the built environment, the cultural
and social fabric of our country and our neighborhoods, and the quality
of life of the people who live here. This quality of life is enhanced
not only by economic security and ample natural resources, but by
enduring community values and thriving neighborhoods where all citizens
have access to safe, comfortable, and efficient transportation.
Systems Planning and
Programming. It is FHWA policy to:
“Encourage and help
State transportation agencies, MPOs, and local governments to take a
leadership role in identifying and considering social, economic, and
environmental concerns as early as possible in the development of
transportation and land use plans and programs.
Work with our
partners early in transportation planning and programming to ensure that
FHWA-funded projects and programs contribute to sustainable community
development that addresses present needs without compromising those of
future generations.
Support corridor
preservation as a way to ensure early consideration of environmentally
sensitive areas and to avoid or minimize future social, economic, and
environmental impacts while providing for needed transportation
facilities.”
Project Development:
Environmental goals
and impacts must be considered continually throughout all phases of
project development (location, environment, design, right-of-way, etc.).
Social, economic, and environmental issues must be considered equally
with engineering, safety, and mobility issues in reaching project
decisions.
Lessons to be learned:
Lesson 1: Specific corridor
plans should flow from state, regional, and metro plans
Lesson 2: Transportation
Planning must be linked with other community goals
Social Impact
Assessment Resources for Transportation Planners
•
Community Impact
Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation
–
http://www.ciatrans.net
•
Guidebook for
Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects
–
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_456-a.pdf
Reflection on presentation by Isaak
Strout
And I reflect:
The social sciences bring up quite a few
more issues when examining a seemingly straight-forward traffic
engineering problem, infrastructure construction or development. It gets
messy, seems ambiguous, looks scary relative to a discussion of road
development in the engineering context of traffic volumes, peak flow,
trip generation, etc. Perception vs. reality, sense of place, wicked
problems? Perceived risks, interest group power structures, individual
and family impacts? Almost begins to make engineering math seem friendly
and inviting. Yet the understanding afforded by analyzing social impacts
of engineering projects seems too important to ignore. During the
presentation and discussion a few important points arose.
Perception v. Reality
This seems to be one of the big scaries of the human condition. What
is real, what is not? Is there an objective absolute? And if so, can an
imperfect, biased, unconsciously prejudiced, self-serving,
self-preserving mass of human molecules ever truly grasp it? Uh,
probably not. I think the important thing is that we, in our roles as
planners/designers/citizens, understand that it is people’s
perceptions that dictate attitudes and behaviors. We discussed the
idea of perceived risk—that something may not be a real risk from an
objective engineering standpoint, yet if it is perceived to be real by
the users, the outcome may be the same as if it were indeed real. This
is exactly the point: a well-conceived transportation construction
project may not meet its overall objectives if the way in which it will
be perceived by the community is not understood first. And how can that
be accomplished? Through a social impact analysis. But that’s just my
perception of the whole thing.
Science and values
The funny thing about using science is that science itself cannot
make decisions about what should be. Our society places great
amounts of faith in science’s ability to create objective decisions,
yet, as was mentioned in our discussion, if science ever says we
should do something, than it is not science. The point: Objective
science—research, data, statistics, theory—is all supposed to be value
neutral. So when we say: “Because the flow at the intersection of Third
and Washington has exceeded X cars per hour, we need to remove the
sidewalks and construct a bypass,” we are applying a value system to a
specific standard. We don’t really have to do anything at X cars per
hour. But there is some underlying value system, a set of beliefs
possessed by the planners (and hopefully the users) that motivates
action. It seems important to remember that all science can provide is
information and relationships; we as designers, planners, and citizens
do all the interpreting.
Soft science
Some folks seem concerned about the reliability or importance of a
science that deals with the complexities and capriciousness of human
beings. It’s all just opinions, perceptions. People are deceptive,
motivated by hidden agendas, false reasons (strawmen, I think was the
term). So why bother? Well, maybe that is more of a reason to
bother. After all, the goal of transportation planning, engineering and
design is to move and connect people, not just vehicles. So we
have to possess some way of discussing those needs and goals in human
terms. Which is where the diverse range of social sciences comes in.
Despite the fact that many of the social disciplines are still evolving
and changing, they represent our collective best insights into how
social systems work. So we may as well apply the best we have to our
most wicked of problems…………like the ring road?
A Holistic Process
It seems pretty clear, that for a variety of reasons, the age of the
omnipotent traffic planner making all decisions (I’m thinking of NY’s
Robert Moses) is no longer. Now, good transportation planning seeks to
be more of an interdisciplinary affair, with a host of professionals:
biologists, engineers, and public relations specialists, landscape
architects, and sociologists all working in tandem with communities. In
the context of our issue—the edge of Moscow—I feel like most of the
divisiveness (present in the discussions during the Sustainable
Transportation Conference and elsewhere) arose from the fact that the
Ring Road Concept was created from a simple transportation perspective.
Apparently little else was considered while drawing it’s lines around
the town. Perhaps people are expressing the desire to have any
transportation planning be a holistic process from the beginning.
This might be an important issue to consider while trying to gain broad
community and political support for any edge development. Perhaps we
should try to discuss it on all levels from the start. |
