Sustainability Science and Planning: A Crucial Collaboration?

ABSTRACT

In this age of public skepticism about science, sustainability science offers a way to increase the application of science in planning and policy. This paper explores the relationship between science and society and the emergence of sustainability science. A comparison of the theory and practice of sustainability science and planning reveals the potential for a natural partnership. Based on the analysis, I suggest ways that planning may bridge the gap and build on the opportunity to strengthen its purpose and impact.

KEYWORDS:

• Planning theory
• sustainable development
• sustainability science
• urban ecology
• planning practice

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. At its most simplistic, the term pseudo-science refers to claims, statements, and positions that are falsely presented as being scientifically or factually valid. However, as pointed out by Hansson (2017), the line of demarcation between pseudo-science and science is not so clear. One interpretation proposes that something is pseudo-science if it is fraudulent or deliberately deceptive, theoretically implausible, non-falsifiable (through testing), or theoretically irrelevant (Marshall, 2012). Science is also understood to evolve through application of the scientific method, which is generally accepted as a stepwise process of hypothesis testing and data collection and analysis. However, there is also debate about the specific details of the method and how well scientists adhere to its principles, particularly objectivity (see, for example, Woodcock, 2014). A table that draws from Lee (2000) to compare science and pseudo-science can be found at https://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors/pseudoscience.htm.

2. The uncertainty of science is well articulated in Karl Popper’s observation that there can be “no ultimate statements in science” (Popper, 1935/2005, p. 25).

3. A study by Miller (2016) indicates that twenty eight percent of American adults qualified as scientifically literate, which is defined as the ability to “find, make sense of, and use” information about science or technology and to engage in “public discussion of policy choices involving science or technology.”

4. The term “non-Euclidian planning” is differentiated from the term “Euclidian zoning.” While “non-Euclidian planning” refers to planning under conditions of uncertainty and non-linearity, “Euclidian zoning” is a nickname for the traditional zoning model of land use separation and regulation and is derived from the landmark Supreme Court case of Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Company (Kelly, 1988). While not necessarily incompatible in application (that is, “Euclidian zoning” does not necessarily not have a place in a “non-Euclidian” planning approach), the two terms are to some extent conceptually antagonistic in that the defining characteristics of “non-Euclidian planning” are adaptability and innovation and those of “Euclidian zoning” are rigidity and certainty.

5. Again, remarkably, Jane Jacobs (1961) provided early insight into how the solution of complex urban problems should be approached. In addition to a focus on process, Jacobs’ prescription involved working inductively rather than deductively, and looking for “unaverage” clues to explain average behaviors (p. 440).

6. According to the critical theory proposed by John Forester (1987), clarification requires the correction by planners of deliberate and accidental communicative distortions which may result in planning process participants being misled.

7. Urban ecology has recently differentiated between the prevalent metabolic “ecology of cities” definition to one that incorporates intra-systemic interactive dynamics – termed “ecology in cities” – and interdisciplinary experimentation and collaboration, termed “ecology for cities”. (McPhearson et al., 2016).

8. While complex problems remain inherently problematic, knowledge structuring is being developed as a systematic method of combining disciplines. It involves, first, the clarification of relationships (problem structuring) followed by the organization of relevant disciplines into an overview of the entire “web of problems” that can be diagrammed and visualized (Komuyama & Takeuchi 2006). There is also evidence that interdisciplinary research has been increasing since the 1980s (van Noorden, 2015), although a study by Porter and Rafols (2009) suggests that the increase has been modest and mainly between “neighboring fields.”

9. A step forward in this regard occurred in 2015, when the MetroLab Network was launched by the federal government to help cities solve problems by setting up a local process that pairs university researchers with city policymakers to bring data, analytics and innovation to city government. Focused on infrastructure, public services, and environmental sustainability, there are presently more than 35 participating city-university partnerships involved in more than 140 projects. More can be found at https://metrolabnetwork.org. There are also some examples of federal guidance and funding for local “evidence-based” projects. Many of these tend to have a specific area of interest, such as programs administered by the U.S. Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/office-justice-programs-awards-more-34-million-build-sustainable-science-based-crime), the Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/stltpublichealth/program/resources/evidence.html) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). Perhaps most notably, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also administers a grant program specifically intended to encourage sustainable development at a regional, community and neighborhood level (https://www.hud.gov/hudprograms/sci).

10. Results of an April 2018 online review for the presence of courses with titles or descriptions that included the terms dispute resolution, collaboration, facilitation, mediation, and participation: • Of fifty-five PAB-accredited planning programs in the U.S., only 10 (18.1%) were found to have one or more of the search terms either in the title or descriptions of core courses. • None of twenty ACSP member schools that are not also PAB-accredited were found to have any of the search terms in their core curriculum. • Cumulatively, one or more of the search terms were found in the core courses of less than 14% of PAB-accredited or ACSP member planning programs. The website Planetizen did not include any of the search terms among its program foci or specializations (https://www.planetizen.com/search-schools/).

11. The collaboration among diverse interests required under sustainability science should reduce the political concerns of elected officials.

12. These tool examples were taken from Jepson and Weitz (2016).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Edward J. Jepson, Jr.

Edward J. Jepson, Jr. is an adjunct professor who teaches online planning courses for several universities in the U.S. His research interests include planning for sustainability and resilience, economic development, and the analytical and procedural aspects of planning practice. E-mail: [email protected].