Filtering by
- All Subjects: urban planning
- All Subjects: Public Participation
- All Subjects: Glen Canyon Dam
- Creators: Kelley, Jason
This brief article, written for a symposium on "Collaboration and the Colorado River," evaluates the U.S. Department of the Interior's Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program ("AMP"). The AMP has been advanced as a pioneering collaborative and adaptive approach for both decreasing scientific uncertainty in support of regulatory decision-making and helping manage contentious resource disputes -- in this case, the increasingly thorny conflict over the Colorado River's finite natural resources. Though encouraging in some respects, the AMP serves as a valuable illustration of the flaws of existing regulatory processes purporting to incorporate collaboration and regulatory adaptation into the decision-making process. Born in the shadow of the law and improvised with too little thought as to its structure, the AMP demonstrates the need to attend to the design of the regulatory process and integrate mechanisms that compel systematic program evaluation and adaptation. As such, the AMP provides vital information on how future collaborative experiments might be modified to enhance their prospects of success.
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) has been identified as a model for natural resource management. We challenge that assertion, citing the lack of progress toward a long-term management plan for the dam, sustained extra-programmatic conflict, and a downriver ecology that is still in jeopardy, despite over ten years of meetings and an expensive research program. We have examined the primary and secondary sources available on the AMP’s design and operation in light of best practices identified in the literature on adaptive management and collaborative decision-making. We have identified six shortcomings: (1) an inadequate approach to identifying stakeholders; (2) a failure to provide clear goals and involve stakeholders in establishing the operating procedures that guide the collaborative process; (3) inappropriate use of professional neutrals and a failure to cultivate consensus; (4) a failure to establish and follow clear joint fact-finding procedures; (5) a failure to produce functional written agreements; and (6) a failure to manage the AMP adaptively and cultivate long-term problem-solving capacity.
Adaptive management can be an effective approach for addressing complex ecosystem-related processes like the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, particularly in the face of substantial complexity, uncertainty, and political contentiousness. However, the Glen Canyon Dam AMP shows that a stated commitment to collaboration and adaptive management is insufficient. Effective management of natural resources can only be realized through careful attention to the collaborative design and implementation of appropriate problem-solving and adaptive-management procedures. It also requires the development of an appropriate organizational infrastructure that promotes stakeholder dialogue and agency learning. Though the experimental Glen Canyon Dam AMP is far from a success of collaborative adaptive management, the lessons from its shortcomings can foster more effective collaborative adaptive management in the future by Congress, federal agencies, and local and state authorities.
In 1974, with a relatively young and fast-growing city in front of them, the City Council of Phoenix, Arizona charged the Phoenix Planning Commission with studying potential plans for urban form. Through the help of over 200 citizens over the next eight months, the village concept was born. Characterized by an emphasis on community-level planning, unique neighborhood character, and citizen input, the village concept plan provides an compelling lens into decentralized planning. In 1979, the Village Concept, as part of the “Phoenix Concept Plan 2000,” was officially adopted by the Phoenix City Council and has remained a component of the city’s long-range planning ever since. Each village features a core of dense commercial and residential activity, with a surrounding periphery featuring varied densities and land usage. There were nine original villages outlined in 1979. As of today, there are 15 villages. Each village has a Village Planning Committee (VPC) made up of 15 to 21 citizens, each being appointed to the committee by the Phoenix Mayor and City Council. This exploratory study was born out of an interest in the Village Planning Committees and a desire to understand their function as a mechanism for citizen participation in urban planning and urban governance. Similarly, with the rapid onset of the automobile and freeway expansion in the decades after WWII, once-insolated communities in the Valley have become connected to each other in a way that raises questions about how to maintain neighborhood’s unique character while promoting sustainable growth and expansion of the city. Phoenix’s Urban Village Model attempts to answer those questions. The efficacy of the model can be considered from two perspectives––how does it aid in making land use decisions, and how does it promote citizen participation? While there is an extensive body of literature on neighborhood councils in the United States and plentiful analysis of the merits of such models as participatory mechanisms and devices of urban planning, there is a lack of discussion of Phoenix’s Urban Village Model. This thesis aims to include Phoenix in this growing body of work.
Much of modern urban planning in the United States is concerned with making cities more walkable. However, this is occurring as the urban landscape of the U.S. is altered radically by changes in crime patterns after the summer of 2020. This paper seeks to find out what the relationship is between walkability and crime in major U.S. cities after 2020. Using multiple linear regressions at the city and neighborhood scale, walkability is found to be a significant, positive predictor of 2019 violent crime rate, 2020 violent crime rate, 2020 property crime rate, and 2020 total crime rate at the city level. It was found to be a positive, but not significant predictor at the neighborhood level. Walkability has no protective influence against crime/rising crime, and it appears that as crime gets worse it tends to get worse in the cities that are more walkable, but other variables such as African American population are better determinants of crime. Urban planners should seek to increase walkability while also finding a way to mitigate potential exposure to crime.