Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
studies of alternatives—before you even think of making a master plan—comprise a
useful, and in some cases even essential, exercise.
Therefore, you need a methodology which is robust and which captures the basic
issues. It doesn't matter whether the wetlands of Iraq flood this way or that way. The
real issue is “Should they use scarce water to reflood the marshes in the first place?”
The planning approach is to be flexible. It has to expand geographically. It has to be
able to add components. It has to be easy to update in data and models. It has to be
easy to change assumptions about land uses, scenarios, and the resulting alternative
functions. A scenario, by the way, is a set of policies and plans. The alternative future
is the result of those scenarios.
The planning and design framework that I and my colleagues have used for twenty
years (Steinitz 1990) is based on answering six questions. And it has to answer them
at least three times. These are the six questions: (1) How should the landscape be
described? (2) How does it work? (3) Is it working well? (4) How might it change?
(5) What predictable differences might the changes cause? And then, finally, (6) how
should it be changed?
The first question is “How should the landscape be described?” This is essentially
answered by representation models which include maps, pictures, photographs, stories,
songs, and legends and memories. These models therefore include data such as dis-
solved oxygen measurements or maps of transportation systems, and they are neutral.
The second question is “How does the landscape work?” This is answered by pro-
cess models which describe the systems that are at work in the area. These process
models are ecological ones, hydrological ones, social ones, economic ones, political
ones, and other kinds; they are not data but rather contain purposeful information.
The third question is “Is the landscape working well or not?” This is answered
through the use of evaluation models based on cultural knowledge. What is con-
sidered a good life in Iraq in the marshes may not be considered a good life in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. And the question is “Who decides whether it's working
well?” Even in Iraq, there are two cultures: the Baghdad intellectual, academic, and
political culture, and the uneducated farmer culture in the marshes. Whose decisions
are going to determine what is good and bad?
These three questions must be asked of the existing conditions. The fourth ques-
tion is “How might the landscape be changed?” This might be the simplest one to
answer. This is because it is based on data that describe the following: what if we
did this? Or this? And so on. This leads to the generation of many competing ideas
as valid answers.
The fifth question is “What predictable differences might the changes cause?”
This is answered through the use of impact models, which are essentially the same as
the process models under different data conditions describing potential changes.
And, finally, how should the landscape be changed? These questions are answered
through the use of decision models that are, once again, based on cultural knowledge.
The first time you have to ask these questions, you're doing it for the purpose of
recognizing the context: (1) We've got to go to Iraq. We know where it is. (2) We know
about the hydrological and social functioning. (3) It's working badly. Apparently, it
used to work quite well. (4) It's going to change, but it could have a lot of water or no
water. (5) What difference does it make? I'm not sure yet. (6) And decision making:
Search WWH ::
Custom Search