Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
As noted repeatedly since Chapter 2, and demonstrated with the case studies in Chapters
6, 10, and 14, the failure to incorporate geology into land use decisions and employ geo-
logic mapping have contributed to mismatches between human activities and the land.
This chapter begins by investigating why the incorporation of science from the academic/
professional literature and professional practice into the community land use planning
process is lagging. Our investigation includes an evaluation of the land use planning pro-
cess in the United States to determine whether it is structured to accommodate science,
and if not, what can be changed to accomplish its inclusion. The primary focus here is on
geology, but includes other sciences. Next the concept of science-based landscape plan-
ning is defined, and applied to parcel-level sites, because at this geographic scale most of
the important land use decisions are made. The chapter concludes with an overview of
watershed management.
15.2 The Science-Policy Gap
The science-policy gap can be defined as “not doing what we know.” In the United States,
this gap was born and nurtured by many factors, including the reshuffling of educational
priorities, public attitudes bred of ignorance, the differing scientific and legal concep-
tions of truth, and resistance to change by organized groups. With respect to education,
after Sputnik was launched in 1957, the United States responded with a massive effort to
upgrade math and science in the schools by passing the National Defense Education Act
(Harris and Miller 2005). This level of interest and investment in science education, how-
ever, has not been sustained (Trohler 2010).
The repositioning of science in the educational curriculum may be a factor contributing
to the public's ignorance about science. For instance, in a 1994 poll, almost one in ten U.S.
citizens indicated they thought the moon landings were faked (Pollack 2003). As for the
difference between the scientific and legal conceptions of truth, in science, only falsehoods,
not truths, can be proven, so there exists some degree of uncertainty. It is this uncertainty
that drives scientists to keep searching for better explanations of phenomena. In law, truth
is conceived as existing “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This conceptual difference partly
explains why our legislation is sometimes slow to incorporate science—lawmakers want
to see a smoking gun.
Resistance to change on the part of organized lobbies also fuels the science-policy gap.
One example here is the resistance of the tobacco industry to antismoking legislation,
despite overwhelming scientific evidence that smoking is detrimental to people's health.
With other issues, however, the reasons behind the gap are cloudier. In the 1980s, science
demonstrated the damages from nonpoint pollution to the nation's waterways (Humenik
et al. 1987), but as of 2010 no national legislation exists for controlling agricultural runoff.
Is this simply a case where the agricultural lobby stuck their money into the pockets of
Congresspersons? Or, are there other considerations, such as the cost of implementing the
program, and the financial burden these regulations may impose on small farmers? Could
those two concerns be a smokescreen for the agricultural lobby to accomplish its objec-
tives? Are there legislators involved who believe the moon landings were faked? Clearly,
there are many factors contributing to the science-policy gap. The concern here is to find
ways to minimize its impact so “what we know” can be applied more efficiently in the
effort to create sustainable urban watersheds.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search