Chapter 3 (Part 1)| Chapter 3 (Part 1) |
Chapter 3
(Part 2)DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING OPTIONS
Developing options requires creativity and imagination; assessing options requires hard analytic thinking. In popular terms, they are "right brain" and "left brain" activities. In a community’s visioning and planning process, these activities need to be done collectively as well as individually.
Options should be developed to help meet the goals that have been set early in the visioning and planning process. The information that has been gathered, integrated, and forecast will help in evaluating options, but the choices still may be difficult. Not only do people often have competing goals; they sometimes have vested interests in certain options. And choosing among options is even more difficult because it involves uncertainty—uncertainty both about the community’s future and about how an option will alter that future, for better or for worse.
Yet choices must be made, if only because "not to decide is to decide." In a community, change is inevitable. The community can seek to guide change, or it can let it happen to them. To get community input on options for smart growth, many of the techniques described above for stage 1 (identifying values and setting goals) may be used, but they may be supplemented with one or more of the techniques described below.
As with the information-gathering stage, options can be developed using professionals, community members, or teams of both. Techniques used at this stage should build on the prior goal-setting, information-gathering, and forecasting. One common technique is a charette; another new approach is to use key performance area task forces.
Charettes
Today, the word charette is used to describe any "intense, on-the-spot design effort" (http://www.masterplanning.com/masterplanning/charette.html). Charettes are most often associated with architectural brainstorming and problem-solving, but they also can be used in developing options for specific community projects or for community planning. For example, the Regional Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) often conducts intense three-day efforts for this purpose.
As described by David Christensen (http://www.masterplanning.com/masterplanning/charette.html), charettes usually are conducted in three parts: listen, envision, and draw. During the first part, specialists and others work together to come to an understanding of the goals, resources, and limitations at hand. In the second part, the group considers various proposals and then focuses upon one or a few preferred options. The final part involves sketching the ideas—fast! The rationale here is that "a picture is worth a thousand words." A sketch provides an immediate, tangible means of communicating the ideas.
Key issues:
• If many points of view are included in a charette, the atmosphere can be creatively charged, and the results can be realistic and well-rounded.
• The number of people should be large enough to spur an exchange of ideas but not so large that people can’t talk and work with each other.
• Charettes typically are quick and inexpensive, although if professional consultant help is needed (and it may be), costs will increase.
Key Performance Area Task Forces
Key performance areas (KPAs) are high-priority areas for which specific actions are developed to redirect the community’s future toward a preferred future. The rationale behind KPAs is that not everything can be done at once, so it is better to concentrate on a few key areas. The KPAs can be defined by sector (e.g., government), by issue (e.g., sprawl), or by type of project (e.g., developing a greenway system).
According to the National Civic League (The Community Visioning and Strategic Planning Handbook, 1997, pp. 33-35), the KPA process involves six steps:
Key issues:
• Participation on a KPA task force requires intensive, sustained commitment; while this can present a challenge, it can help to build community capacity.
• KPAs can help to focus attention and energy and make the problem of redirecting the community’s future seem manageable; however, important concerns and possible initiatives may get ignored if they don’t make the KPA list.
• Task forces must be well-balanced to perform effectively.
• Task forces should be closely connected to the larger group throughout the KPA process, to improve the likely acceptability of their results.
• The action plan should lead directly into action, so that momentum generated during the KPA process is not lost.
Evaluating options can be done—again, by professionals or community members—using such techniques as a decision matrix, a chart of the options’ pros and cons, the "Delphi" technique, or indicators as assessment tools.
Decision Matrix
A decision matrix has four basic elements:
Each numerical assessment is multiplied by the criterion’s numerical weight to produce a score; the scores for all the criteria are then summed to produce a total score for the option. Options may then be compared based upon their total scores.
Assigning the numbers to weight the criteria and to assess the options requires judgment and, if a group process is used, a means of reaching agreement among the group. (For this purpose, the Delphi Technique might be used.) To help ensure that the criteria are weighted impartially, their numerical weights should be assigned before the options are assessed.
Key issues:
• This technique is fairly easy to understand; however, it may lead to a lot of contention about numbers assigned to assess options and weight criteria.
• An option may receive a high total score if it does very well on some criteria, even though it "fails" (receives a very low number) on other criteria. Minimum "passing" numbers for each criterion may be needed to ensure that the option is a good choice.
• The decision matrix shouldn’t mechanically crank out decisions; instead, it should be a tool for helping to structure how decisions are made. But, because single scores are produced for each option, these scores may be treated as the "bottom line," not as guides.
Charting the Options’ Pros and Cons
A chart can be used to summarize the pros and cons of each option or strategy. ("Pros and cons" can also be thought of as "benefits and costs," but benefits and costs should be interpreted broadly, not just as dollar profit or loss.) In estimating pros and cons of options, the difficulty of carrying out an option should be taken into account.
Charting pros and cons can be done as a small-group or an individual activity. The nature and the probable magnitude of pros and cons should be recorded. Estimates of the magnitude of pros and cons can be based on judgment, using descriptors such as "a great deal" or "very little" that can be converted to numerical scales (e.g., from 1 to 5). Or the magnitude of pros and cons can be estimated using formal analytic techniques and models, such as regional economic impact models. In the latter case, the estimates probably will need to be done by someone recognized for his/her expertise and neutrality.
Key issues:
• To be useful, the magnitude of the pros and cons will need to be estimated, but the estimates may be highly uncertain and controversial.
• It may feel like comparing "apples and oranges" to weigh the pros and cons of different options. Sometimes it is. Options should be sorted, not only by the goals they are meant to achieve, but also by whether they are "low investment" or "high investment." (Low-investment options with high payoffs are usually winners; high-investment options with low payoffs are usually losers. The others will require more thought.)
Delphi Technique
The Delphi Technique is a formal, iterative process of distilling opinions and reaching areas of agreement and disagreement. It can be used simply to clarify where differences lie, or it can be used to arrive at a consensual or majority view on the options at hand. It is better suited for assessing options than for developing them.
In the Delphi Technique, questionnaires are filled out independently by panel members. Each question should have been carefully prepared and pre-tested. The members may be mailed the questionnaire or may be gathered together in the same room; in either case, they participate without direct interaction with other panel members. A facilitator then prepares a feedback summary and provides this and a follow-up questionnaire to the panel members. The summary allows the members to reflect on the group’s responses taken as a whole; the follow-up questionnaire allows each panel member to modify his or her initial responses. The process may be repeated for several rounds. The final feedback summary represents the final points of agreement and disagreement.
Historically, the Delphi Technique has been used mainly on issues where panel members are chosen for their expertise. In recent years, however, the technique also has been used with laypeople on policy and planning issues. The technique is best suited to relatively small groups. It can be used with larger groups, but the task of tallying or otherwise digesting responses and preparing a feedback summary becomes much more difficult, especially if the questionnaire allows for open-ended comments.
Key issues:
• The Delphi Technique can be used where participants are geographically dispersed; they can complete the questionnaires at their own convenience.
• This technique allows each participant to reflect on the options at hand without being pressured, influenced, or distracted by other participants.
• Because the technique allows each participant to express views anonymously, the result may be greater frankness but less accountability.
• The technique requires good reading skills and, if the questionnaire is open-ended, good writing skills.
• The technique requires an impartial, skilled facilitator to prepare the initial questionnaire, pretest it, and prepare subsequent questionnaires and feedback summaries.
Indicators as Assessment Tools
The indicators discussed above (see Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information) and in Chapter 5 can serve as yardsticks to assess options. Each option is evaluated for its expected effects on the indicators that have been chosen. Both the direction (positive or negative) and the strength of the effect should be estimated. Disputes may be lessened by not trying to put these future effects into precise quantitative terms.
This process is best carried out by a small group. The group may decide to treat all indicators as equal, or they may decide to "weight" the indicators—that is, treat some as more important than others. In weighting the indicators, they can either rate them (e.g., high, medium, low importance) or rank them (e.g., from 1 to 10). Rating them will be easier since it requires fewer forced choices among indicators, but it has a greater likelihood of "ties."
Key issues:
• Because this technique requires estimating the future effects of options, it may lead to competing guesses.
• If the same set of indicators is used at several points in the visioning and planning process, the process will be more efficient and have greater continuity, and its results can be more easily communicated. However, this makes the choice of indicators all the more critical.
• If indicators are chosen early in the process (e.g. when gathering information), the choice may be neither well-informed nor optimal for assessing options. A second set of indicators for assessing options can be chosen, but these later choices will have to be explained and defended.
• Weighting is time-consuming and potentially contentious but will sharpen people’s thinking about what is most important in an option.
Computer-based tools may be desirable in the options stage, especially for complex, multi-faceted issues.
GIS-Based Tools
GIS-based tools are discussed in Chapter 4. They can be used to help visually represent and evaluate options such as a proposed new road or park. The option is sketched in and then can be seen in relation to factors such as population density and projected growth. A GIS-based tool also may allow you to adjust various features of an option (e.g., park size, location, access points) to create the best alternative.
Key issues:
• This technique requires sophisticated GIS-based computer software.
• The results can be shown to and discussed by citizens, but running the program and introducing the variables requires training.
• GIS-based tools are best suited for assessing tangible, "on-the-ground" options such as opening a new shopping center or closing an old school; these tools are less suited to assessing policy and program options such as a new development impact fee requirement or a farmland preservation program.
Expert Systems and Optimization Techniques
Expert systems can be used when expert knowledge is available to establish "if-then" rules. These then help to guide the decision. Optimization techniques can be used when there are many variables (resulting in many possible solutions) as well as a clear objective and formally defined constraints. Search techniques that employ either linear or dynamic programming are then used to systematically identify an optimal solution. In both cases, the system or technique is likely to rely on a sophisticated computer program.
Key issues:
• These techniques may require extensive data inputs.
• They typically require training to operate the program, although simplified, user-friendly programs are being developed.
• While some programs are being developed for smart growth planning (see Chapter 4), most tend to be limited to information synthesis and are not decision support systems as such.
• It may be difficult to understand or communicate how the decision tool has operated to reach its conclusions.
• These techniques should be treated as decision aids, not as automatically making the final decision. Factors that cannot be incorporated into the program often need to be taken into consideration.
For the vision and plan to be translated into action, implementing decisions will be required from local businesses, organizations, and individuals, as well as from the local government. For this reason, it is important to bring these key potential decision makers into the visioning and planning process in its early stages, not simply when decisions are to be made and carried out.
At the formal, "making decisions" stage, however, the recommended vision and plan usually is turned over to the appropriate local governmental body—typically, the planning commission, the city council, or the county commissioners. The plan may be informally or formally adopted by them, but it usually is considered through set procedures. Because these procedures are well-established and vary to some extent depending upon the form of local government management, they are not dealt with here.
Nevertheless, the procedures for considering and reaching a decision on the plan are not always "written in stone." The council or commission may, for example, choose to consult directly with the voters through techniques such as a referendum. In a referendum, a legislative body puts a proposal to a citizen vote. (In a ballot initiative, citizens petition for a proposal to be considered. In a direct initiative, the citizen-drafted proposal goes directly on the ballot if it has enough signatures; in an indirect initiative, it is first submitted to the legislative body.) Referenda and ballot initiatives may be binding or non-binding. Local laws vary in their specific requirements concerning these "direct democracy" techniques; basically, however, the goal is determine whether a proposal is widely supported.
On the plus side, referenda and ballot initiatives allow all local registered voters an equal opportunity to express their opinion. However, people (such as youth) who are interested in the outcome but can’t vote are left out, unless special techniques such as in-school polling are used. Furthermore, if the voting turnout is low or the vote is close, it may not convincingly appear to be the "will of the people." If a referendum or ballot initiative is undertaken, the ballot questions must be carefully phrased to avoid bias. Moreover, it’s important to remember that responses are limited to a vote of "yes" or "no," and that without supporting information about the proposed plan, voters may make uninformed choices.
Especially if the outcome of a referendum or ballot initiative is to be non-binding, other techniques (e.g., some of those discussed under "Identifying Values and Setting Goals," such as forums, town meetings, surveys, and video-based techniques) might be used instead of or in addition to a formal, ballot-box technique.
MONITORING CHANGE
No vision and plan lasts forever—Chattanooga, for example, had a revisioning process in 1992 as a follow-up to its 1984 process. Until they are replaced, however, a vision and plan should serve as a guide for the community. They should help the community to chart and stay on a course, rather than being buffeted aimlessly by the winds of change. But conducting a visioning and planning process is not enough. Not only should the process lead to concrete actions; after the process has ended, change must be monitored and, when appropriate, responded to.
The notion of monitoring change is simple: Are we staying on the course that we charted for ourselves? If not, are the changes good? For example, are we achieving our goals earlier than expected? Or do some of the changes damage the vision we have set for our community?
Actually monitoring change is difficult. It requires foresight, to know which symptoms of change should be tracked, and when and how they should be tracked. While monitoring change is the last stage in the visioning and planning process, it should be anticipated early in the process, when information is first being gathered. It also requires dedication, to bring continued attention to symptoms of change long after the excitement of the visioning and planning process has passed. And it requires judgment, to distinguish large, long-lasting changes from small or fleeting changes.
In monitoring change, it’s important to track both positive and negative change; both big events (e.g., a prospective regional shopping center) and aggregate, incremental change (e.g., a gradual decline in wildlife habitat); and both internal and external forces for change. Tracking external forces for change can be especially important. Given today’s global economy and increased mobility, towns and counties—including those in non-metropolitan areas—are not isolated; they are subject to outside influences. Those influences cannot be stopped, but they can be anticipated and guided.
Monitoring change can be the responsibility of a number of people and organizations: for example, school groups, neighborhood coalitions, business and civic organizations, as well as local government agencies. But to get a composite, collective sense of how change is affecting the community, this information will need to be periodically synthesized, evaluated, and communicated.Monitoring change--things to consider:
Devices such as indicators, benchmarks, and surveys can be used to monitor change.
Indicators
The indicators discussed in Chapter 5 and above (see "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information" and "Developing and Assessing Options") can be used to monitor change. By using the same indicators at various stages, including monitoring change, a systematic track record can be developed of the direction and extent of change. Indicators can serve as measures of progress toward goals; they can also serve as "canaries in the coal mine" to alert the community to undesirable trends.
Key issues:
• Indicators will capture incremental change but not sudden big events.
• Indicators are only as good as the measures chosen and the information collected.
• Because monitoring change requires dedication over a number of years, not an intensive effort over a few weeks or months, the group that used indicators in the early stages of the visioning and planning process may not be appropriate to do continued monitoring. For that reason, the early stages should have the input and guidance of those who are expected to track changes over time.
• When monitoring change, indicators of exogenous change (change from outside) as well as endogenous change (change from inside) will be needed. These indicators may need to be somewhat different from those used earlier in the visioning and planning process.
Benchmarks
Benchmarks can be used as specific targets against which progress can be measured. For example, a regional non-profit organization in northeastern Mississippi—the Commission on the Future of Northeastern Mississippi—has established three categories of goals: human resource development, infrastructure development, and community and economic development. Under each category, they have established benchmarks—e.g., attaining a 90 percent immunization rate in the region (Baldwin, Fred D. 1997. Vision and Involvement: Empowered Communities. Appalachia January-April; and http://www.arc.gov/infopubs/appalach/janapr97/vis&inv.htm).
Key issues:
• By making goals tangible, benchmarks can spur action as well as monitor change.
• Benchmarks only measure change that is directly goal-related. They do not measure change that has indirect but strong effects on goal attainment, and they may not help in understanding why goals are or aren’t being met.
• Benchmarks are not useful in tracking key events that can have abrupt, large impacts on the community.
Surveys
Surveys are discussed above, under "Identifying Values and Setting Goals." Surveys also can be used to monitor change. They can be mailed out periodically to seek information from community members on changes they have observed, on facts about their current circumstances, on their feelings about the community, etc.
Key issues:
• Surveys used to monitor change have all the strengths and limitations of surveys in general, as noted above, under "Identifying Values and Setting Goals."
• Surveys used to monitor change are best suited to either assessing changes in people’s attitudes or gathering factual information about their household or neighborhood circumstances (e.g., annual household income, number of miles driven, recreational activities, neighborhood meeting places).
As in the information-gathering and options assessment stages, monitoring change can be done by a combination of professionals and community members, working alone or in teams.
Data Center
The Data Center technique discussed above (see "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information") can be used to monitor community trends. In Ouray County, CO, citizens are encouraged to review the data sets provided by the Southwestern Colorado Data Center and to make comments on them (http://www.landuse.com/scdc/ourayc/gov/trend/exsumf.htm).
Key issues:
• A Data Center used for monitoring change is likely to have the strengths and limitations noted above, under "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information."
• While a Data Center may effectively monitor incremental change, it is not likely to anticipate key events that could have a sudden, major impact on the community.
• A Data Center will need political connections to translate changes observed into calls for action.
Trustees
"Trustees" can be used to monitor change and maintain the momentum of the visioning and planning process. Sustainable Seattle, a volunteer network and civic forum whose mission is to advocate for sustainability in Seattle and King County, Washington, elects 15 to 25 trustees to three-year terms, with no term limits. The trustees are respected members of greater Seattle who represent community diversity and subscribe to sustainability principles. The trustees’ responsibilities include monitoring program activities, considering major policy issues before the Seattle community, and linking Sustainable Seattle to other community efforts and organizations.
The trustees, who are led by two co-chairs, meet four times per year. They are one part of an organization that is built on volunteers and includes a three-member advisory board, a 10 to 20 member team that coordinates task teams and projects, a management team of up to 5 people elected by the coordinating team, and a paid support staff at the YMCA as a secretariat to provide day-to-day administrative support.
Key issues:
• The "trustee" approach helps to ensure that changes will be tracked by a core group.
• Systematically monitoring changes will require a lot of effort on the part of the trustees, other volunteers, or staff.
• Linkages to local government, businesses, and other organizations will depend on how well-connected and attentive the trustees are.
• To be effective within the community, the trustees must be seen as a well-balanced group that promotes the community’s interests over special interests.
• The trustees should have formal or informal means for input from community members.
• Some funds or staff will be required to communicate the trustees’ findings.
Key Performance Area Task Forces
If the key performance area (KPA) approach is used (see "Developing and Assessing Options"), the KPA task forces might serve as ongoing crews to monitor change within their designated performance area.
Key issues:
• Because KPA task force members are familiar with the KPA, they are likely to have both the interest and the knowledge to monitor change within the KPA.
• Unless change within the KPA occurs rapidly, the KPA task force may disband because it has little apparent reason for continued vigilance.
• People willing to make an intensive, short-term commitment to a KPA task force may be deterred if it involves a long-term commitment.
• The KPA task forces will need to provide their input to a central organization that can assess the combined effects of change across the KPAs.
Informal Monitoring by Stakeholders
This technique assumes that active "stakeholders"—individuals and organizations with strong interests in a particular place or topic—can be relied upon to monitor change in their areas of concern. This technique, which contrasts with more formal monitoring techniques, has long been employed in many communities.
Key issues:
• Stakeholders have the greatest passion about their areas of concern; they are likely to remain vigilant as long as they regard themselves as stakeholders.
• Arguably, stakeholders have the greatest day-to-day familiarity with their areas of concern and are best-equipped to detect changes early and make them known.
• Some areas of concern have no active, aggressive stakeholders yet still should be monitored.
• The results of stakeholder monitoring may be not be accepted by other community members; it may be seen as (and may in fact be) biased or incomplete.
• For stakeholder monitoring to provide a record of change over time, stakeholders must remain in a community and continue to take an active interest in their areas of concern, or they must "pass the torch" (and the records) on to others.
• To get a composite picture of where the community is headed, the results of stakeholder monitoring will need to be integrated periodically across areas of concern.
###
Key Sources
Babbie, Earl. 1975. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
The Civic Index: A New Approach to Improving Community Life. 1998. Denver, CO: National Civic League.
Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and Communities. July 1997. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Creighton, James L. 1981. Public Involvement Manual. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
Daniels, Thomas L., John Keller, and Mark B. Lapping. 1995. The Small Town Planning Handbook. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association Planners Press.
Dodge, William R., and Kim Montgomery. May 1995. Shaping A Region’s Future: A Guide to Strategic Decision Making For Regions. Asheville, NC and Pittsburgh, PA: Land-of-Sky Regional Council and Strategic Partnerships Consulting.
English, Mary R., Amy G. Gibson, David L. Feldman, and Bruce E. Tonn. 1993. Stakeholder Involvement: Open Processes For Reaching Decisions about the Future Uses of Contaminated Sites. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Waste Management Research and Education Institute.
Environmental Planning for Small Communities: A Guide for Local Decision-Makers. September 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Nelessen, Anton C. 1994. Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities. Washington, DC: American Planning Association.
Okubo, Derek. 1997. The Community Visioning and Strategic Planning Handbook. Denver, CO: National Civic League.
Redefining Progress. 1997. The Community Indicators Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Redefining Progress.
Scharre, Philip C., Philip W. Hyatt, and Kim Yates. 1997. Quality Communities Manual. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Valley Authority.
| Chapter 3 (Part 1) |
