What the environmental planning profession should learn from the medical profession

    For one thing, it should learn to practice watchful waiting as a planning option.

    Recall the Saunterer’s post of November 14, 2005, where planners are renamed medicators. To it let’s add that medicators deal with two classes of problems: problems where attempts to solve them are required, and problems where attempts to solve them are elective (think of required surgery and elective surgery).

    The panda and gorilla and a multitude of species are in danger of being swept away. Watchful waiting is out; prompt planning is required to save them.

    In contrast, a tiny percentage of the population wants roads built through wilderness areas. Watchful waiting is in; prompt planning is not required to solve the problem of pleasing these people. For, time and doing nothing often make the desired state, and hence the problem, go away, and the original actual state is seen as perfect.

    Wants and values do change. With household items, a year is long enough for a change; think of garage sales. With costlier items, three to five years can be enough; think of the saying, “Your second happiest day is when you buy your boat; your first happiest day is when you sell it.” With environmental values, two or three decades can produce a change (think of the ongoing shift since Earth Day).

    The book Generations, by William Strauss and Neil Howe, is relevant reading for medicators and the lawmaker’s that order them into action, for it demonstrates the inevitable change in values from generation to generation. A large percentage of future generations may want wilderness areas, unspoiled by roads and the people they bring.

    If environmental agency medicators had a staunch willingness to prescribe watchful waiting for elective problems, biding time for at least two or three generations, just possibly time would produce the solutions.

Comments

[dave iverson]

Thanks Charles,

I got my dose of Strauss and Howe from THE FOURTH TURNING (thanks Mark Rasmussen for the tip some time back). Wonderful reasoning therein, and no doubt also in GENERATIONS.

My work with government planners (federal and local), and my ever-increasing disgust for comprehensive, rational planning led me to the study of "scenario planning" as a means to practice and advocate for "watchful waiting."

With scenario planning we simply rehash the past, and rehearse the future. We leave open options for day-to-day decision making, recognizing that the future is important and different not only from the past, but also from what we may expect the future to be. In short scenario planning teaches us to "expect to be surprised," as adaptive management practitioners advise.

Scenario planning also leaves open the door to plan for, and implement protections for that which we know to be endangered, should we be wise enough to know "endangerment" when we see it and wise enough to know what actions to take. It also leaves open the door to adjust and amend our plans and decisions as needed. It also leaves open the door not to take action just yet, but to watch and wait when we think that to be an appropriate tactic.

[Aaron Kelson]

Hello Charles,

Watchful waiting may accepted by the medical profession because most practitioncers have a healthy respect for their own limitations. Watching enough treatments fail, despite the best of efforts, would seem to teach that lesson well. Maybe environmental planners have not had to face the consequences of failure enough to develop the same level of humility.

I don't advocate the practice, but it may be worth mentioning that environmental planners generally do not have to fear being sued for malpractice after the results of their decisions become apparent. The link between accountability and authority is much weaker for environmental planners than it is for medical professionals. Are there any options for strengthening this link?

One more thought about watchful waiting. Some cultures accept the strategy much more readily than does our own. One of my Native American friends recently reminded me that when one is uncertain about the correct path to follow he should wait until the Creator speaks to him in his dreams. Then, he will know what to do. In the meantime there is no rush to make a decision simply to seem "on top of things." Quiet reflection is all that is required.

My own worldview allows me to believe in the value of watchful waiting, but I find that belief constantly at odds with professional training and the dominant culture of which I am part. In America we admire the action hero. Is there also room in our culture for the sage on the hilltop?

I appreciate the chance to express some thoughts.

[Mark Rasmussen]

The analogy makes me nervous. I nearly expired last Spring because of my doctor's bias toward watchful waiting. Turns out I had big trouble brewing inside and it was only my wife's insistence on active intervention that led to the life-saving diagnosis.

The problem with watchful waiting in natural resources is that it can too easily become an excuse for doing nothing.

We've been doing something (e.g. fire control, living in wild settings, managing predators, feeding elk, building dams, etc.) for so long that doing nothing may no longer be a viable option.

One thing that I learned from Strauss and Howe is not to lay too much blame on past generations. They made decisions that seemed right at the time, under the circumstances and values of the time. We can only hope that future generations will cut us some slack as well.

[Free Shipping Coupon]

panda and gorilla and a multitude of species are in danger of being swept away.They should be respected by us. keep them out of danger.