Chapter 2| Chapter 2 |
Chapter 3
(Part 1)"Visioning" has become a buzzword. It is used in two related but different senses. It can be used narrowly, to refer to establishing goals for the future—in other words, where you want to go.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
—Wayne Gretzky, quoted by Fred D. Baldwin, The Power of Vision: Making the Strategic Plan Come Alive. Appalachia. September-December 1997.
Alternatively, "visioning" can be used broadly, to refer to an entire process.
Visioning is more than painting an idealistic picture of the future—it is a process of evaluating present conditions, identifying problem areas, and bringing about a community-wide consensus on how to overcome problems and manage change.
In this guide, we use "visioning" in its narrower sense, as one step in planning for the future. Regardless of how the terms "visioning" and "planning" are used, however, they together refer to a process with five stages:
Each of these stages is related. Even if the process proceeds in a roughly linear fashion, it may be necessary to anticipate some stages. For example, people may not feel comfortable voicing goals until some information about the community has been distilled and communicated; an awareness of realistic options may lead to a revision of goals; and plans may be laid for monitoring change in the future, even as current information is being gathered.
In what follows here, we take apart these five stages and suggest some techniques that can be used, singly or in combination, to help carry them out. Sometimes we refer to a product, such as a "vision statement"; sometimes to a tool, such as a "geographic information system"; sometimes to a method, such as a "nominal group technique." Each, however, is a means to an end. They are not ends in themselves; instead, the end should be the community’s well-being, now and in the future.
After briefly describing each technique, we note key issues to consider before adopting that technique. These are issues that have occurred to us or have been raised by others. For any given community, however, they may not be a major concern, or there may be other concerns. These key issues are meant to be "thought ticklers," not to definitively evaluate a technique. Much depends on how it is carried out and integrated into the larger process. In Chapter 6, we recommend ways in which the pieces of the process should be integrated.
IDENTIFYING VALUES AND SETTING GOALS
Values are a person’s internal conceptions of what is desirable for themselves and others. Values are not static; while some values are deeply held, others can change as a person learns more about a situation. Values help to shape what people want for (and from) their community; thus, values are important in goal-setting. Community goal-setting should transcend individual values, however. Goals for the community should be a product of personal reflection and collective dialogue.
Identifying values and setting goals can lead to different "products," such as vision statements, scenarios, and surveys.
Vision Statements
Vision statements have become popular, not only as a part of the strategic planning of individual companies and organizations, but as part of community planning. They have been promoted by groups such as the National Civic League, which regards vision statements as one of several essential components within collaborative planning processes. According to the National Civic League:
A community vision is an expression of possibility, an ideal state that the community hopes to attain....The vision provides the basis from which the community determines priorities and establishes targets for performance. It sets the stage for what is desired in the broadest sense, where the community wants to go as a whole. It serves as a foundation underlying goals, plans, and policies... Only after a clear vision is established is it feasible to effectively begin the difficult work of outlining and developing a clear plan of action.
Derek Okubo. The Community Visioning and Planning Handbook. Denver, CO: National Civic League, p. 31
The National Civic League recommends that vision statements be reached by consensus, include strong visual descriptions, and be directed toward a period stretching at least 10 years—preferably 15 to 25 years—into the future. They recommend a brainstorming exercise to warm up a group; then breaking the group into smaller working groups of 7 to 10 people to develop vision themes, which then get reported back to the larger group and integrated into a statement. They suggest a weekend visioning retreat as an effective format, but note that typically the vision statement will be developed over two non-consecutive evenings.
Key issues:
• Vision statements should be broad, but they should set a direction. Finding the right level of generality can be difficult.
• Getting the right mix of people to develop a vision statement is challenging but crucial. It will affect the credibility and usefulness of the statement for later planning.
• People’s views and visions won’t always agree. Looking for areas of agreement can be time-consuming, and important differences may be papered over.
• Vision statements, and visioning more generally, may seem cheap but have hidden costs in terms of staff and participant time. To justify time investments, vision statements should clearly set the stage for action.
Scenarios
Scenarios tell stories about the future—either about what people think will happen, or about what they hope will happen. The latter kind of scenario—the "preferred future" kind—can be used for articulating values and goals. Either way, they need to be constructed methodically. For recommendations on constructing forecasting scenarios, see "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information."
There are different tactics to generate the "preferred future" kind of scenario. One is to ask people to put themselves into some point in the future and then describe where they are and how they got there...in effect, a hypothetical reflection on the past. A similar tactic is to ask participants to project themselves into the scenario and describe their reactions. In both, concrete examples and representative events should be used, and links among different factors should be described.
As described in Shaping A Region’s Future (William R. Dodge and Kim Montgomery, 1995) scenarios can also be used to test alternative visions. Participants can discuss a "best case" version of a vision, where everything goes the best way possible, and then a "worst case" version of the vision, where everything goes wrong. They can then discuss other versions, such as a trended version, where things go as they have to date. By using scenarios in this way, visions can be tried out and refined.
Key issues:
• Participants need to have a good working understanding of their community’s economy, social life, and natural environment to generate either forecasting or "preferred future" scenarios. This may necessitate learning about the community before participating in a scenario-building session. (See "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information" below.)
• If scenarios developed by individuals or small groups are to be used for community goal-setting, the scenarios will have to be integrated by looking for broad themes or areas of agreement.
Surveys
Surveys can be conducted to elicit opinions on a variety of subjects. The survey can be directed toward a targeted population, a random sample, or a stratified random sample (i.e., population components are identified and then randomly sampled). Key decisions include the purpose of the survey; the sampling technique and the number of people to be surveyed; the method of administering the survey (typically, by mail, by phone, or face-to-face); the design of the survey instrument; and how results will be recorded, analyzed, and communicated. Surveys may be repeated to assess changes in views over time. In general, formal survey procedures, large sample sizes, and high response rates all help to make the survey results more representative. However, informal surveys—e.g., a survey in a local newspaper—can give some indication of local views.
Key issues:
• In general, surveys that produce valid, generalizable results are time-consuming and involve high costs (in either dollars or staff and volunteer time). In contrast, informal surveys can be done fairly quickly but produce results that aren’t necessarily representative of the community as a whole.
• Unbiased, informative survey instruments are surprisingly difficult to design. Also, people are more likely to respond to short than to long surveys, so survey items must be chosen with care.
• Most surveys ask "closed-ended" questions—i.e., the respondent is posed a question and then chooses from a limited set of responses, such as "yes," "somewhat," "no." This facilitates summarizing and analyzing results across a large number of responses, but it may not provide much insight into people’s views. The survey may need space for open-ended comments, or it may need to be accompanied with other, less-directed means of seeking people’s views.
Visual Preference Surveys
A Visual Preference SurveyTM (VPS) uses images (typically, photographic slides) with evaluation forms. One purpose of a VPSTM is to learn what community members think about the community’s present appearance; a second purpose is to build consensus about what its future character should be.
The concept of surveying visual preferences has been refined and popularized by A. C. Nelessen (Visions for a New American Dream, 1994). Images of scenes in the community or elsewhere are selected to represent a range of settings (e.g., farmland, residential neighborhoods, and businesses) and a range of attributes (e.g., wide or narrow streets, compact or low-density housing). The images represent features of the community as it is today and features that it could have in the future; the images are presented randomly, sometimes with paired or redundant images to check for bias. The images may be assembled by planning staff or their consultants. Alternatively or in addition, a group of diverse community members could assemble the images.
As each image is shown, community members are asked to numerically rate it on a positive to negative scale (e.g., from +10 to -10). Mean scores for each image are then calculated, and the images are ranked accordingly from most desirable to least desirable. A zero indicates a neutral impression of the image.
Key issues:
• VPSTM lets community members respond to images rather than to words. It makes abstract ideas tangible, and it may reach people who have limited reading, writing, or public speaking abilities.
• The results can be translated by planners and architects into building codes, subdivision controls, and other design criteria.
• VPSTM works best in large group settings—for example, public meetings and school groups—where a number of people can be shown the images. (An alternative might be to put the images and survey on a Web site, where people could respond at their convenience from home or public library computers.)
• While the concept is simple, selecting the images is difficult. Images must represent a range of existing and possible features in the community but must not be so numerous that people are reluctant to participate.
• The image may be distorted by perspective or subject matter—for example, by focus on an especially beautiful tree or an especially ugly billboard. This may lead to distorted responses.
• To avoid the bias of familiarity, scenes that are typical of the community but are taken elsewhere may be used. These may be more difficult to obtain, and they require more judgments about what images should be shown.
• Respondents may become more lenient or strict in their evaluations as they go through the images; this may distort the scores. (For this reason, a few slides at the beginning and end of the series may not be included in the analysis.)
• It is important to couple numerical testing with the evaluations from the photographic images.
|
Forums |
|
Forums provide situations where people with different backgrounds and experiences can get together to discuss different topics. As one example, in 1993 and 1994, the Cambridge Civic Forum in Cambridge, MA, organized forums around seven areas: ecology, the built environment, health and well-being, education and training, business and employment, social justice and governance, and arts and transcendent values. At the forums, individuals and groups met together with representatives of civic organizations, government departments, and businesses. The purpose of the forums was to share visions and concerns, engage in dialogue, and generate an action plan for Cambridge’s future.
Key issues:
• Forums encourage crossing socio-cultural barriers by providing situations in which diverse groups and individuals can meet as equals. However, they may be dominated by a vocal few unless they are carefully facilitated.
• The large-group setting of a forum provides a sense of community but may not provide a setting in which all views can be expressed; furthermore, people who attend and speak out may not represent the spectrum of views in the community.
• Forums may lead to a sense of "all talk and no action" unless they are well-structured, with action items as outcomes.
Town Meetings
In the classic New England-style town meeting, local government decisions are reached by popular vote at the meeting and are binding on the local administration. As the term "town meeting" has come to be used, however, it often does not refer to a form of government. Instead, it refers to a meeting where people come together to exchange ideas on a particular topic—very much like a forum, but sometimes a bit more structured and focused. Anyone can attend, and the issues to be discussed typically are policy issues (not highly technical issues or detailed planning or program review). As with a forum, an experienced moderator is needed; in addition, for discussions to be useful later, they must be accurately summarized. Typically, consensus is not sought at non-governmental "town meetings"; instead, they provide an opportunity to air one’s own views and hear other’s views. If the size of the population or geographic area is large, several town meetings may be held in different locations on the same topic. Town meetings may also be repeated on different topics or at different stages in a visioning and planning process.
Key issues:
• Town meetings (in their popular, non-governmental sense) have many of the same key issues as forums. They improve acquaintance and communication among diverse community members, but a representative spectrum of people may not turn out; some people feel uncomfortable speaking out in large-group settings while others may attempt to dominate; and the meetings may seem to be "all talk and no action" unless they have clear outcomes.
• Town meetings and their counterparts demand only limited time commitments from their participants, but they can place heavy demands on the staff and volunteers who arrange and publicize meetings, conduct them, and summarize their results.
• Because decisions usually are not made at town meetings, one question that will likely arise is, "How are you going to use all this input?" The answer to this question will depend upon the larger process, but it’s important to have an answer.
Committees and Task Forces
Everybody knows what a committee is. There are, however, several different ways to set one up. A committee can be a collection of volunteers, or it can be appointed. If appointed, members can be selected for their expertise, or because they represent important organizations, population groups, or viewpoints. Most committees are small (a dozen or so people), but some are much larger. While some committees are "standing committees" of indefinite duration with revolving memberships, most committees established for a visioning and planning process meet for a limited period of time. During the process, the same committee might meet, or it might be augmented or otherwise changed at different stages of the process. Committees typically must work out their own procedures: whether they will have a chair, how they will keep records of their meetings, and how they will make decisions (e.g., by consensus or by majority vote).
Task forces are like committees, but they usually are directed toward one or a few issues—either policy or technical issues—and usually continue for a specified period, until they have completed their task. Committees may be supplemented with task forces or subcommittees to address specific issues. Subcommittees typically include a few members from the main committee but may have other members as well; task forces may or may not have a completely independent structure. When a committee is augmented with subcommittees or task forces, a way of integrating findings and recommendations will need to be developed and clearly understood, as will an allocation of responsibilities.
Key issues:
• Self-selected committees or task forces are more likely to have enthusiastic, committed participants, but they may not be well-balanced. However, selecting a committee’s members requires that someone (or a steering committee) do the selecting.
• Committees established for the purpose of helping to advise on and guide a community’s visioning and planning process are mostly likely to be effective and received as credible if they represent a number of different sectors within town. Inclusiveness must be balanced with workability, however; a committee is most effective if everyone has the opportunity to speak and exchange views (typically, no more than 12 to 15 members). An alternative is to break into subcommittees, but then the question of how to integrate advice must be addressed.
• A basic decision will be needed: Should local elected and administrative officials be involved, or should this be a "citizens committee"? One alternative is to have local officials serve as ex-officio members, but this may not sufficiently engage their attention.
• The committee’s purpose and scope of authority need to be well-understood at the outset, but still may evolve during the process.
• Committees of volunteers often require considerable staff support and expertise; they have hidden costs in both the volunteer and the staff time required.
• Rather than setting up a new committee, an existing committee (or board, or panel) may be able to fill the bill. But if an existing committee is used, its main agenda should not be allowed to dominate or overshadow the agenda of the visioning and planning process, and the committee may need to be supplemented with other members to round out its composition.
During the focus group session, individuals participate in a "group interview"; through the group discussion and interactions, values and preferences are clarified and expressed. The purpose is not to get a consensus position from the group, but rather to get a sense of the nature and range of views. Typically, focus groups are not used for grappling with technical issues.
Key issues:
• Focus groups don’t lead to well-integrated recommendations. They can, however, help to reveal which issues are on people’s minds; they thus can help to structure surveys, community meetings, or committee deliberations.
• To be useful, focus groups need to be conducted early in a process; they should not be an add-on.
• To be useful and not give a biased impression, focus groups for a number of different population groups are likely to be needed.
• Focus groups are time-consuming to conduct, and they require skill in both leading the "group interview" and recording and interpreting its results.
Many different techniques can be used to facilitate identifying values and setting goals. A few are noted below.
Video-Based Techniques
Particularly with the advent of community channels, television can be used to discuss issues and elicit opinions. For example, during the program, viewers may be asked to fill out and mail in a questionnaire that was previously distributed with notice of the televised program. (The questionnaire might have been sent by mail, publicized in the local paper, or distributed in public gathering places.) In effect, the program provides a means to present information (see "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information") that may help to inform people’s expressed values and goals for the community; it is accompanied with an informal survey.
Another way to use video technologies is through "video conferencing." People at multiple satellite locations view a program which is transmitted from the central location.
They then phone in questions or opinions which are answered or relayed at the central location. Alternatively, with sophisticated video conferencing, the set-up is fully interactive and people can exchange information and questions directly.
Key issues:
• Using a community channel to convey information and elicit opinions may reach people who watch television often but are unable or disinclined to attend community meetings.
• With video-based techniques, information presentations must be formatted to transmit well on television.
• Video-based techniques may be expensive and difficult to set up, especially if satellite locations and interactive conferencing techniques are used.
Computer-Based Polling in Meetings
Participants in a medium- or large-group meeting are given keypads connected to a central computer. They can then "vote" on issues raised, and the votes are instantly tallied. Immediate feedback is provided on a display screen connected to the computer. A facilitator is needed to pose questions that can be answered using the keypads, and an assistant usually is needed for the computer. The votes typically are advisory only; they provide a sense of the opinions of the people in the room to both the participants there and those who are gathering opinions.
Key issues:
• A number of issues can be addressed quickly with anonymous, rapid feedback; however, the formal, computer-based procedure may give people the impression that they are actually voting rather than simply registering an opinion.
• Computer-based polling requires either having the equipment and expertise to run the meeting or hiring a consultant to do so.
• The number of participants is limited to the number of keypads.
• Some participants may feel intimidated by the technology and pressured by the situation (particularly the need to respond quickly by pressing a button); some may also have difficulty comprehending the computer-generated graphs displaying responses.
• A skilled facilitator is needed to both frame the questions and know how to encourage rather than shut off discussion using the computer polling technique.
"Voting Dots"
The "voting dots" technique uses small, colorful adhesive dots available at school and office supply stores. Several variations are possible. A typical one is described below.
Upon entering the meeting, all participants are given the same number of dots and told that they will be used later in the meeting. The meeting facilitator poses a question to the participants, who are encouraged to respond but keep their answers brief and to-the-point. Other participants or the facilitator may seek clarification of a response but should not challenge or debate it. The facilitator or an assistant writes each response separately in large print on a large sheet of paper, which is then posted at the front of the room. The facilitator poses a second question and again seeks responses, which are written on another large sheet of paper. The process is repeated for each question. (Usually, the questions are few and general in nature.) Very similar responses may then be combined with the agreement of the participants.
During a break, the participants use their dots to vote for the responses they think are the most important. If they choose, they may "spend" all their dots on one response, or they may spread them around. The responses are rated and ranked according to the number of dots received. Discussion of the results may follow.
For very large groups, it may be necessary to break into smaller groups and run the process concurrently in several different rooms. The process occurs in the same manner, and the ratings are tallied across groups, using each group’s response and voting results. Some validity is lost, however, because like items from the different groups are combined by the facilitators without the participants’ input.
Key issues:
• Participants need to understand how the meeting and its results fit into the larger process.
• Participants need reasonably good reading skills for the voting procedure.
• Because the voting procedure is not anonymous, participants may feel pressure to vote for some responses over others.
• Some people may feel uncomfortable speaking in front of a large group. (To deal with this problem, participants may be invited to write down responses as well. These responses are then listed for all the participants to see.)
• Some important issues may not fare well in the voting process: With a limited number of dots, people must make forced choices and a few dominant issues may receive most of the dots. (To lessen this problem, people may be given several dots in different colors and instructed to use the different colors for different thematic categories, such as "economic," "environmental," and "social.")
Nominal Group Technique
This is one of several techniques that can be used to elicit and clarify opinions and develop group recommendations. The nominal group technique can be used for a small group or for a larger group that is broken out into small groups.
Each small group is given the same question for participants to address, and each has a facilitator who may also participate. Participants begin by individually writing down responses to the question at hand. They then go around the group, each person stating one item from his or her list, and repeat going around until all items have been covered. The facilitator writes each item verbatim on a flip chart; the group holds off on discussion. Items are then discussed, clarified, and numbered but not combined. Each participant writes down the numbers of their top ten items, using index cards—one card for each item—and then prioritizes those items, ranking them from 10 (top) to 1. The facilitator collects the cards and records the number of "votes" each item received. The group discusses the results and then each participant ranks the 10 highest-scoring items, using the same procedure as before. If more than one group is involved, each facilitator gives his or her group’s results to the meeting coordinator.
Key issues:
• The nominal group technique draws out opinions that might otherwise go unvoiced, by giving participants equal time.
• Through this technique, people with different backgrounds can communicate their views and together clarify issues; however, this and other techniques that rely on writing and reading skills may marginalize people who lack these skills.
• Forced ranking may lead to dropping out important issues that don’t make the final cut. (One possible solution might be to rank within but not across categories. Another solution might be for participants to rate all items by whether they are low, medium, or high priority using scores of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The scores are then summed for each item.)
• It may be important to distinguish near-, medium-, and long-term items.
• "Rolling up" the results from several small groups may present a problem. One possible solution might be to have the small groups re-assembled as a large group to vote on the combined results within categories.
GATHERING, INTEGRATING, AND FORECASTING INFORMATION
Information grounds the process in reality. While people’s values may differ, sometimes their differences can be lessened if they can reach agreement on facts.
New information may sometimes be needed, but existing information often can be used. This existing information can come from various data sources such as those listed in Appendices A-D (e.g., the U.S. Census), from local or outside experts, and from citizens who are familiar with the community. The challenge is to collect this information, synthesize it, and forecast what lies ahead—in effect, to convert it into useful, shared knowledge. The aim should not be endless detail, but meaningful patterns that can be easily communicated to and by community members.
In anticipating change within the community (i.e., in forecasting), external forces for change may be at least as important as internal forces. Forecasting allows you to make better plans and decisions, with the aim of changing the forecast from what will happen otherwise to a preferred future.
Gathering, integrating, and forecasting information---things to consider:
| Community Profiles | As with goal-setting, the information stage should lead to tangible,
easily understood products such as a community profile or a set of indicators. Some
information may be mapped using a computer-based geographic information system.
|
As described by the National Civic League (Community Visioning and Strategic Planning Handbook, 1997) a community profile consists of local indicators of how well the community is doing on various scores, combined with a survey of community members’ perceptions. Indicators are measured using available data to the extent possible. The survey is conducted (e.g., by a community research committee) asking community members about their perceptions of the communities’ assets and challenges. These survey questions may be combined with "visioning" questions about their values and goals concerning the community. The community profile combines the results into one information tool which depicts areas in which the community is doing well and areas in which it is struggling.
Key issues:
• Ideally, the profile will integrate "hard data" with local perceptions and information. It may, however, reveal discrepancies between data and perceptions. While this will help inform the community members (through learning that either their perceptions aren’t right or the data don’t tell the whole story), it may lengthen the information-gathering time.
• Choosing good indicators will be crucial to creating a useful community profile. For more on indicators, see below and Chapter 5.
Indicators
Indicators are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. They are measurable features of the community that represent other important features as well. For example, a current or projected change in the local age composition may also indicate a looming need for more schools or senior services.
Indicators can show both vector and force—that is, both the direction and extent of change. They are, in effect, barometers of various aspects of community change and well-being. Good indicators are measured using reliable, readily-obtained information. This information can be collected by local staff, other experts, or community members. Similarly, the indicators may be selected by staff, experts, and/or community members. Not only should they be good representations of reality; they should also be good communication tools that can attract attention and inspire action.
During a visioning and planning process, indicators can be used to paint a picture of the community as it was and is today (information gathering and integration), and to help predict where it is headed (forecasting). Indicators can also be used to assess options and, after decisions are made, to monitor change in the coming years.
Key issues:
• Choosing indicators is not easy; they need to be selected not only for data availability but also for representativeness.
• Indicators need to balanced—for example, some cover financial health, while others cover environmental quality and social well-being—but too many indicators confuse the picture.
• To get community "buy-in" to the indicators, they should be chosen by community members working with staff, but they need to be chosen very early in the process so that information can be developed.
• Indicators can be misleading unless they are seen as signs, not as goals in themselves. The whole is greater than the sum of its measurable parts. As Albert Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Different types of information (data sets) are shown on a map. Data can be of many different types—for example, population densities, school locations, transportation corridors, rivers and streams—and can come from many different sources. Mapping these different types of data allows you to visualize their spatial relationships.
The term "geographic information systems" usually refers to computer-based systems of mapping data. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Computers enable you to quickly select and display different data sets at different levels of detail. Alternatively, you can use the traditional method: a map drawn on paper overlaid by paper or plastic transparencies, with each transparency displaying a different set of information. Or you can combine the two methods, using a computer-based GIS for the basic information from which you develop more "user-friendly" maps.
Key issues:
• GIS helps to establish a common source of information and a common understanding about that information.
• Some community members may not be familiar with maps; in effect, they may not have learned how to read them. For them, GIS (either the computer-based method or more traditional methods) will not be an effective tool to communicate information about their community.
• Computer-based GISs are "the wave of the future" and have many advantages over traditional methods—in particular, they allow you to manipulate data sets rapidly and flexibly. However, these advantages may be offset by the cost and training required to run a computer-based GIS. In particular:
• The hardware (equipment) and software (programs) needed to run a computer-based GIS have become much more affordable but are still fairly expensive.
• A computer-based GIS requires entering in the basic data sets. This requires access to the data sets as well as technical expertise; it may also be time-consuming.
• To use a computer-based GIS interactively during a public information session, a means of displaying information on a large screen will be needed. This equipment is available and has become more affordable, but it still adds to cost. Also, the person operating the computer in the public session will need to feel comfortable in rapidly using the GIS. Alternatively, results from a computer-based GIS can be printed out ahead of time and distributed, but this means that the GIS cannot be actively used during the public session, with different information called up and then displayed.
• Because computer-based GIS is still a tool not commonly available to community members, it may limit their ability to participate as researchers in information gathering and synthesis activities.
|
Extrapolating Trends |
There are several different techniques for anticipating the future—for example, by extrapolating trends, making comparisons, conducting "intention" surveys, constructing scenarios, or using models. |
This technique uses past trends to project what will happen in the future. It is usually used with data that can be quantitatively displayed: for example, population size, household income, number of acres in farming. This method is best-suited to situations where no major new forces for change, internal or external, are expected. A common form of extrapolation is the "straight line" trend, but other statistical methods can be used as well.
Key issues:
• This technique is considered objective, but it is subject to bias in which data are chosen and which statistical methods are used for extrapolation. There also may be disagreement about how far into the future it will be accurate.
• Unless complicated statistical methods are used, it can be readily and inexpensively done, and its results can be easily communicated.
• Its results can be misleading if new forces for change are not taken into account.
Making Comparisons
By examining what has happened in other, similar communities, predictions can be made about what could happen in your own community. This can be done informally, by networking and by reading newspaper articles and case studies. Or it can be done systematically, by locating a few places that are like yours in many respects, except that these other places have already experienced forces for change (good or bad) that could occur in your community. You then analyze the changes that have resulted and why they occurred. These comparisons—in effect, "anticipation by analogy"—can be done by community members as well as by staff and other experts.
Key issues:
• By researching and reporting on analogous communities, community members can connect with other communities within and outside the region.
• Making comparisons between one community and another can be illuminating but risky. Neither the communities nor the forces for change will be exactly the same. Analogies should be used for insights, not for absolute predictions.
• More formal, careful comparisons are likely to be more accurate but also much harder and more time-consuming to prepare.
Intention Surveys
According to Scott Armstrong, an expert on forecasting, "Intention studies are surveys of individuals about what actions they plan to take in a given situation or, if lacking a plan, what they expect to do" (in Dale and English, eds., Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making, 1999, p. 203). Their purpose is to try to anticipate how people will behave under certain conditions. (See the discussion of "pressure - state - response" in Chapter 5.)
Surveys of this sort can be directed toward key local decision makers, public and private, in order to help anticipate actions that could have major effects on the community. For example, key decision makers could be asked about their possible actions if traffic on a major route through town increased 50%.
In addition, community members can be surveyed concerning what they might do in certain situations, to get a sense of the many individual actions that could in the aggregate have major effects on the community. For example, community members could be asked about their possible actions if the local high school were closed and students were directed to a regional high school.
Key issues:
• How the questions are chosen and expressed is critical with these surveys. They should address issues that, while not immediately pressing, are not implausible, and they should be expressed without bias.
• The time frame of the questions is also important—long enough to get a sense of how people may act in the future, but not so far off that the questions seem irrelevant.
• Guaranteeing anonymity of responses may be especially important with this type of survey.
• The results should not be taken as an absolute predictor of behavior under certain conditions, but rather as an indication of what people now think they might do.
Scenarios
Peter Schwartz, a futurist, has identified eight steps for developing forecasting scenarios (The Art of the Long View, 1991):
(1) Identify a focal issue or decision. That is, begin with a specific decision or issue; then build out.
(2) List the key positive or negative local factors influencing your situation.
(3) List the driving trends in the external world that influence the local factors listed in (2).
(4) Rank the key factors and driving forces based upon their importance and uncertainty. The point here is to identify the factors or trends that are both the most important and the most uncertain.
(5) Select the scenario logics—in other words, boil down the possible scenarios to a few key, fundamental differences. The goal is to end up with just a few scenarios whose difference would dictate different actions.
(6) Flesh out the scenarios. Tell a story, by returning to the key factors and trends identified in (2) and (3) and considering how they might "play out" in each scenario.
(7) Consider the implications. Return to the focal issue or decision, and consider how it looks in each scenario.
(8) Select leading indicators and signposts. By identifying a few indicators to monitor, the scenarios can be evaluated for their accuracy as the future unfolds.
Schwartz cautions against the temptation to use three scenarios, with one of the three the "most likely" scenario. Instead, he suggests developing a pair of equally high-probability scenarios, as well as a pair of high-impact but low-probability scenarios. However, he also cautions against having too many scenarios, since this can blur distinctions. He recommends naming scenarios vividly to make them used, and of having decision makers involved in their creation.
Key issues:
• Scenario "stories" may communicate the community’s possible futures more effectively than statistics.
• Visual pictures (e.g., drawings or photos) will help to reinforce the word pictures.
• Developing scenarios isn’t easy; it requires time, imagination, hard thinking, and basic knowledge about key factors and trends.
• Scenarios should be developed through a group process, but that process may be dominated by a few people who get captivated by "their" scenarios.
• It may be difficult to involve key decision makers in the scenario-building process, yet they need to be involved to make the scenarios useful and used.
Modeling the Future
Computer-based models can be used for predicting how a "system" (for example, the local economy or local ecological systems) will respond to change. They can be used to identify key factors (variables) and key relationships among variables. Typically, they are built on complex "if X then Y" theories, and they use quantified or quantifiable data. Models for integrating and forecasting community information are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
Key issues:
• Models are better than many other methods at integrating many different factors and predicting how they will interact under different circumstances. They are best at predicting large, not small, effects.
• Models are becoming easier to run with simplified computer programs, but typically, they still are expensive and require expertise and training.
• Models are only as good as their data inputs. If the data needed are not available at the right scale (for example, if they are not available at the municipal level), the model may not work.
• If the system is open, not closed—that is, if it is subject to significant external influences—the model of the system may produce misleading results, unless these external influences can be taken into account.
• Because of their complexity, models may be a "black box"... in other words, the process by which conclusions are reached may be difficult to understand.
Information gathering, integrating, and forecasting may be done by professionals or community members (or a combination or the two). If community involvement is sought at this stage, the committees and task forces discussed above (see "Identifying Values and Setting Goals") may be used, or special techniques may be employed, such as a community drafting process, community mapping and information-gathering, or a local research committee.
Data Center
A Data Center can develop and maintain a policy-neutral source of information and analysis. The Data Center can use available data and statistics, perform trend analyses, and conduct surveys. In Colorado, for example, the Southwestern Colorado Data Center (a non-profit organization) conducted a survey for Ouray County as part of an assessment of growth and the county’s master plan. The county obtained a grant to fund the survey.
Key issues:
• A Data Center (non-profit or government-run) is more likely to be cost-effective in metropolitan areas than in a rural town or county. In non-metropolitan areas, regional organizations or universities could provide a similar service. To some extent they already are: see Chapter 7.
• While a Data Center should be "policy neutral," it will have its own working principles (i.e., epistemological values) about good sources of data, how data should be analyzed, how trends should be predicted, and so forth. People may disagree about these epistemological values; thus, a Data Center shouldn’t be expected to solve all disputes about credible information. It may help to lessen those disputes, however.
• A Data Center will provide an information base to a community, but it will not call upon community members to help develop that information base. It won’t promote community engagement in the process.
• The Data Center won’t promote long-term capacity building within the community unless the Data Center becomes one of the community’s integral resources.
Community Drafting
The community drafting process was used as part of San Francisco’s Sustainability Planning Process. It involved choosing topic areas—air quality, parks, transportation, economic development, etc.—and then recruiting volunteer coordinators in those areas. Most of the volunteer coordinators were community activists or city staff knowledgeable about a topic. Each coordinator was responsible for recruiting a broad cross-section of participants, holding meetings on the topics, and writing up the results.
While the purpose of San Francisco’s community drafting process was not only to develop information but also to specify goals, objectives, and a proposed action strategy within each topic area, a similar approach could have the more modest purpose of assembling data and other information.
Key issues:
• Community drafting may help to engage the attention of a variety of community members, as they contribute to the process by helping to gather information.
• Community drafting may build connections among different community members who otherwise would not interact.
• Community drafting requires dedication and a lot of time from the topic area coordinators, as well as fairly extensive time commitments from other participants.
• The community drafting process may result in information that, while good for each topic area, cannot be easily integrated.
• The process may result in biased information, unless the drafting team make-ups are well-balanced.
Community Mapping and Information-Gathering
If community members participate in mapping or other information gathering, they should know why they are asked to do so. The reason may be to collect specified information, or it may be to collect the community members’ perceptions of their physical surroundings. The latter purpose can be called "cognitive mapping," a concept that was pioneered 40 years ago by Kevin Lynch, an urban planner.
Lynch interviewed people in three U.S. cities and asked each of them to sketch a map of their city. Lynch saw the maps as representing their mental images of the places they inhabited, and he noted that the maps had five basic elements: paths (thoroughfares along which people move), districts (medium to large areas), edges (boundaries between areas), landmarks (distinctive places such a town hall or a steep hill), and nodes (points of convergence, often of paths) (Lynch, The Image of the City, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1960).
In like fashion, mapping and other information-gathering can be carried out by community members in two quite different ways:
First—loosely following the example of Kevin Lynch—community members can be asked to collect information about their community without being given detailed instructions. (Alternatively, they can be given a map on which they are to fill in those aspects most important to them.) The result may be a source of new data about the physical community; more importantly, though, this approach reveals what is important to the community members participating in the exercise.
Second, community members can be asked to collect data or complete maps on specific topics such as public buildings, greenways, streams, and commercial centers or specific sections of the community. With this approach, community members are used as troops to systematically inventory their community.
A blend of the two approaches is to ask community members to identify or map places within their community that mean different things to them, such as sacred places, favorite gathering places, favorite recreational places, and least-liked places.
Regardless of the approach, community members may work as individuals or in teams, and they should be given written instructions for consistent use of symbols or color codes to note different features. After the information has been collected or the maps have been completed, they can serve as the basis for group discussions about the physical community.
Key issues:
• Using "hands on" techniques, community members become better acquainted with their physical community; they also may become better acquainted with both the planning process and other community members.
• The effort involves a considerable time commitment from participants (e.g., a weekend or two), and considerably more from the person or team coordinating the effort and synthesizing its results.
• The results may be inaccurate (if accurate information, not perceptions, are sought), and in any case may be difficult to interpret and synthesize, especially since the level of detail is likely to vary among participants.
Research Committee
A community research committee can complement other parts of the process, by assembling information about and for the community. As recommended by the National Civic League (The Community Visioning and Strategic Planning Handbook, 1997), the community research committee would work with local staff to develop at least two documents: (1) preliminary materials on external trends (i.e., global, national, and regional trends) that affect or might affect the community’s quality of life; and (2) a profile of where the community is today, using selected indicators (e.g., population, crime rates, employment rates).
The National Civic League recommends that the research committee be made up of 3 to 5 people plus local staff; it could, however, be considerably larger, especially if it were organized into subcommittees. Another variant would be to involve local schools in finding and distilling the information needed, perhaps working with staff and volunteers as mentors. Local retirees might also be engaged in this activity.
Key issues:
• As noted in Appendices A-D, much information is now easily accessible via the Internet. (It usually exists in hard copy as well but may be much less easy to get.) Unless community members have Internet access, they may need staff help to get this information.
• Research committees require substantial time commitments of both community volunteers and staff. In fact, the latter may feel that it’s more trouble than doing it themselves. For this reason, it would need to be seen as part of local community involvement and capacity-building.
• "Home-grown" knowledge and information can be a good complement to more formal data but needs to be well-verified.
• The kinds of information collected may reflect the biases and interests of those on the research committee unless they have clear directions about what is needed, for what time periods, and at what level of detail.
• Preliminary information may be needed very early in the process, before value identification and goal-setting activities. If so, community members would have to become engaged in this research early and move quickly.
- Community Information Sharing
| Chapter 2 |
