|
IV. Linking Science With Land Use Policy: Challenges
It has often been noted (by the International Joint Commission, for example) that the major challenges involved in controlling nonpoint source pollution are not technical, but institutional. To put this another way: although there are uncertainties and information gaps, we know how to do more than we are actually doing. The challenge, then, is in connecting what needs to be done, and what we do. Achieving this depends on linking science and policy more effectively. Two aspects of this challenge will be discussed: the frequent lack of clear policy direction provided by science; and the challenge of communicating scientific information in a complex jurisdictional environment.
Lack of clear policy direction provided by science
Scientific uncertainties regarding nonpoint source pollution often lead to a classic problem of environmental policy making: how do we take action when many sources and/or effects of pollution are imperfectly understood? For example, science cannot offer clear direction regarding future policy regarding phosphorus inputs into the lakes. Some studies suggest that these inputs remain a problem (Schueler and Caraco 2000), while others argue that nutrient levels in the Great Lakes are now too low (Gaden 1998). It is unclear therefore whether governments should pursue further reductions, do nothing at all, or allow increases. More generally, insufficient knowledge on nonpoint urban pollution and its sources can itself be an obstacle to effective responses. As the IJC has noted, "...without strong data, we lack proof of cause and effect relationships, and therefore cannot make sound management decisions with confidence" (GLSAB 2000).
With additional research may come consensus regarding these uncertainties. Application of the precautionary principle may also aid in resolving questions regarding appropriate responses to urban nonpoint source pollution. But other challenges remain to incorporating scientific information in land use policy decisions. Such challenges are often political, but they must be recognized and addressed if nonpoint source pollution problems are to be resolved.
Communicating science in a complex political environment
Decision-making and policy implementation with respect to nonpoint source pollution is the responsibility of governments at several levels of jurisdiction: federal, state/provincial, municipal, and other levels. However, not all levels have equal influence, or equal access to information or other resources. Federal and state/provincial governments have participated most in nonpoint source pollution control initiatives. In contrast, the local level has been much less active, even though local land use decisions impact most directly on urban pollution sources. Local governments in both the United States and Canada have jurisdiction over city planning, sewage systems, roads and waste (Thorp et al. 1997: 85, 95) and all of these areas are crucial to addressing nonpoint pollution issues. These governments are also closest to both the sources and effects of pollution, and may have knowledge that their state/provincial or federal counterparts do not. However, the connection between these two levels of decision-making: the binational, in which federal and state/provincial governments are represented, and the local, is very weak. As the IJC has noted, there is no linkage between local development decisions and the provisions of Annex 13, and the transfer of responsibilities and programs from senior levels of government to local governments, as well as the increasing economic and political importance of cities, has made this linkage more difficult (IJC 2000: 31). As a result, policymakers with the most direct link to urban planning issues often do not have the information needed for informed decisions regarding nonpoint source pollution, nor the resources-financial and regulatory-with which to implement these decisions.
In response, the IJC has recommended a "guidance policy" be incorporated into land use planning policies and decision-making across the region. Such a policy would draw on scientific understanding of the urban environment, as well as recent policy innovations, such as "smart growth," for the benefit of decision-makers and land use managers (IJC 2000: 31-32). However, more than a "guidance policy" is needed to ensure effective use of science at the municipal level. Municipal governments often lack the fiscal and human resources needed to obtain scientific information on nonpoint pollution. If the information does not exist, policymakers will have to obtain it, either by using in-house staff or by contracting out the research. While municipalities have often done so, it is becoming more difficult. This has been especially true for urban areas in Ontario, where government funds have been cut and municipal responsibilities increased. A further difficulty is structural, in the form of a lack of connection between planning and regulation: land-use planning and pollution prevention still tend to be seen as separate activities within municipal governments.
Some municipalities do have access to extensive scientific information on land use impacts. For example, the City of Toronto produces periodic reports on the state of the environment. One of its most recent documents, entitled "Water: Strategic Directions" lists several ongoing problems related to nonpoint pollution, including combined sewer overflows, wastewater, and drinking-water quality, and suggests strategies to resolve these problems (Toronto 2000). But few cities in the Great Lakes region have Toronto's resources, and thus smaller municipalities need to find alternative methods for obtaining scientific information. They must also address questions regarding the authenticity of data, and skepticism regarding its sources.
There are also political obstacles to applying scientific information. These are evident in the frequent observation that while policymakers may have adequate access to information about the environmental impacts of urban development, they nevertheless fail to act effectively. Most obviously, while the environmental and economic costs of sprawl are often cited in policy documents, this continues to be the dominant urban development pattern. Clearly, obtaining scientific consensus is only the first step in incorporating Great Lakes science into policy: it is also necessary to mobilize governments and the public to act. This can be difficult with regard to pollution from land use activities, for three major reasons.
First, there can be great difficulty in coordinating responses to scientific information, both inside bureaucracies and between cities and regions. Within the Great Lakes region there are 250 Canadian and well over 1000 American municipal governments (Thorp et al. 2000). Each must deal with a range of federal and provincial/state regulations and agencies; many of these agencies pursue divergent interests, often on the basis of different scientific information. The international border can hinder communication: governments along it often have little contact with their American or Canadian counterparts, and little mandate to negotiate or share information. This proved to be an obstacle to progress in Remedial Action Plans along the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers (Sproule-Jones 2002: 45).
Second, economic considerations are always important. As cities compete against each other to attract investment, decision-makers may choose to downplay environmental concerns in land use decisions. In general, environmental impacts are only one factor among many that city planners consider in making land use decisions. Under pressure from a property rights movement that advocates limits on government regulation of development, officials may also face legal action for the decisions they make (Thorp et al. 1997: 19). In Ontario, developers can appeal city land use decisions to the provincially appointed Ontario Municipal Board, which can overturn the decision if it determines that the decision was in error or unfair (Ontario Municipal Board 2000).
Third, changes in activities that affect water quality, such as applying herbicides and pesticides to lawns, require changes in individuals' behavior (Hirsch et al. 2001). This can also be politically difficult, particularly in the face of dominant aesthetic ideals relating to lawns. More generally, suburban development reflects, to some extent, consumer demand: many people want detached homes, suburban neighborhoods, and the accompanying resource-intensive lifestyle. A recent study in Canada suggests that 60 percent of all homes built in the next ten years will be single detached homes (Remax and Clayton Research 2001). Communities may also be reluctant to consider changes in urban form, such as narrower streets, even if the resulting reduction in impervious surfaces provides environmental benefits. Thus, a major challenge in addressing urban nonpoint source pollution control is motivating the public to consider the environmental impacts of both the suburban lifestyle generally, and more specific activities such as pesticide use.
Together, these factors will tend to encourage a high level of variability in water quality protection efforts across any given watershed. The outcome, as Kellogg (1997) notes, is that the benefits of a higher level of protection in one community can be minimized as the river runs through less protected areas elsewhere in the watershed.
|
