Can Industrial Expansion / Agricultural Preservation Land Use Conflicts be Resolved Sustainably?

Wow. Good one Sylvain (see Linked in Discussion and referenced issue-Port vs Ag in Metro Vancouver). What a classic land use conflict: current suicide economy conflicting with old economy and "no change" populist sentiment! Framed as it is, the winner will just be whoever has more political muscle and legal rights/resources. But that won't necessarily be the "best" solution for society (if that even matters any more).

SUMMARY

The short response that occurs to me is as follows: if/when market-based resolutions clash with larger societal perceptions and values of what is right/needed/best, then the issue and process need to be reframed. The reframing needs to expand the period of assessment (say to 100 years), include the expected conditions and values of an increasingly climate-challenged world and Metro Vancouver, expand the values considered for a socially legitimate decision, include a vision of the type of place Metro Vancouver wants to be in the future, assess the full range of realistic options for the Port’s objective instead of simply horizontal “areal” expansion as the only option, and assess the options relative to Metro Vancouver’s values and vision. Powerful decision-support tools and highly effective stakeholder education and decision-making processes that can collaboratively generate creative solutions that have not yet been developed need to be used. One such seasoned approach is the 21st Century Town Meetings of America Speaks. (http://americaspeaks.org/ and http://americaspeaks.org/services/). There are others, but what is true is that something beyond standard public process that rarely generates third option, creative, win-win, solutions would be needed. Should the classic "rational" approach to planning be out gunned by powerful politics, then some semblance of it can be used to powerfully inform a citizen-based advocacy planning campaign that reframes the decision and analysis, educates deeply, and innovates creatively to generate the full range of realistic options and trade offs as the basis for an informed decision. (I developed a longer response, which can be read here.)

DETAIL

To get to analytic and visionary answers that approach "best" answers would require different framing and process. What is the right metric(s) to use to value the change and future economy/society created? Is simple NPV sufficient? Which move makes a bigger contribution to the future economy/ society desired? Is the size of the larger contribution sufficient compensation for the trade off? Who gets to say which society is desired? The Port based on sectoral, immediate economic value? Or the past collective will of the polity that established the Ag Land Reserve (ALR)? Which economic "asset" will be more important in a climate challenged world over the next 20-100 years?

Changing ag to industrial land uses is typically permanent. Are there other values (assets) that each represents that also need to be included, such as the social capital and food security issues of agriculture, both now and in a climate challenged future local-global economy?

To get to the set of "best" answers would require a different frame, method, and process. Instead of the decision being the Port's way or the highway based on a limited short-term economic analysis, the issue needs to be shifted to the larger economy/societal effects and a choice among key stakeholders. The decision period should be expanded to 100 years. The set of future challenges and changes likely to occur under our business-as-usual scenario (our present current and future reality) in an increasingly climate challenged world need to be articulated as precisely as possible, especially the magnitude of the key uncertainties. The values that a legitimate decision will be based upon will need to be articulated. To do so will require assembling the group of relevant stakeholders, conducting visioning/values discovery exercises, and articulating the state of the future city the stakeholders desire. The effects of the change then need to be analyzed against the desired future as part of the input, which option contributes in which ways, what are the tradeoffs, are there creative win-win options?

Seeking innovative solutions and strategies that have yet to be articulated that can accomplish both objectives (expanding Port economic capacity AND preserving agriculture) need to be explored, developed, and tested. Key strategies to use include radical resource and materials efficiency. Can the Port figure out a way to execute its processes more intensely on existing land. At some point, a land expansion option will not be physically possible. Maybe there are some advantages to testing that constraint now to see if it leads to different and more powerful economic process solutions. Typically, these solutions are capital intensive and begin to add dimensionality, in terms of verticalness (e.g., taller buildings) to operations. Are these possible with current or future technologies? Are there process solutions that create efficiencies or speeds that eliminate the need for more space? Is this the wave of the future for port development anyway? Are other Ports already developing that way and will they gain a competitive advantage as a result? What is the best business model for the Port in a future, ecologically regenerative economy/society? Is there an ultimate size/profit point for this Port beyond which it should not grow?

Further, and more importantly, what is the best "business model," e.g., economy, for Metro Vancouver in an increasingly climate-challenged world? It may or may not include horizontal Port expansion or agriculture. What is the future of agriculture in the climate-challenged future of Metro Vancouver?

The essence of the situation when more than simply economic values collide (and can be resolved by the market itself) is that the decision needs to be re-framed as a societal decision based on longer-term and wider values than used in the short-run market mechanism. Creativity and innovation need to be injected into the planning process to fully understand the issues and options and the relevant stakeholders need to choose the best solution. Powerful decision-support tools and highly effective stakeholder education and decision-making processes that can collaboratively generate creative solutions that have not yet been developed need to be used. One such seasoned approach is the 21st Century Town Meetings of America Speaks. (http://americaspeaks.org/ and http://americaspeaks.org/services/). There are others, but what is true is that something beyond standard public process that rarely generates third option, creative, win-win, solutions would be needed.

Should the classic "rational" approach to planning be out gunned by powerful politics, then some semblance of it can be used to powerfully inform a citizen-based advocacy planning campaign that reframes the decision and analysis, educates deeply, and innovates creatively to generate the full range of realistic options and trade offs as the basis for an informed decision.