Description
This technique was used in Snoqualmie, Washington in order to assess the impact of a proposed real estate development on community character. The project operated on four central assumptions:
- The elements contributing to a city’s character are different from those contributing to the surrounding countryside's character;
- Character is determined by a composite of natural characteristics (e.g., the prevalence of wildlife), built characteristics (e.g., the scale and arrangement of streets and buildings), economic characteristics (e.g., the kinds of work that people do), and socio-cultural characteristics (e.g., political preferences or community traditions);
- There are recognized characteristics (such as a well-known historical site) that people know contribute to the area's character and unrecognized characteristics that people do not consciously recognize; and
- Different characteristics are important to different types of people, but some are important to nearly everyone.
Steps
Designed and led by consultant Gary Pivo, the process was based loosely on that of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and was prompted by a specific situation (a proposed development). The process was broken down into four phases:
- Phase 1 involved “scoping,” which determined the elements of character that the development would likely affect. This phase included several different types of background research, including studies of local and county planning documents, public comments, surveys, and focus groups, and a literature review.
- Phase 2 inventoried and analyzed those elements, including their existing conditions and the project impacts. This phase was very similar to the evaluation phase in an EIS process, but environmental elements were replaced with the community characteristics and causal factors were tied to them. The team used a matrix to organize the process, and used a variety of community indicators and outside data to develop projections.
- Phase 3 considered mitigation strategies, assuming the development would go ahead. Most EIS mitigation strategies are related to scope, siting, and permitted activities of developments; similar recommendations were made here, along with other suggestions for the community relating to timing and activities.
- Phase 4 presented results of the study for consideration and use in the decision-making process. A series of public meetings and comment periods were required for the project’s EIS process to begin with, so the results of the study were provided to facilitate and inform those conversations.
Pros and Cons
While the process utilized surveys and other public participation methods, it was primarily run and directed by a consultant, acting on behest of the City of Snoqualmie; the public was not directly involved in planning or organizing the process. Using more traditional research and analysis methods helped to minimize the time and energy requirements of the process, but it also meant that the end result was less likely to truly reflect the public’s views and desires. The combination of data types (quantitative and qualitative; maps, images, stories, and surveys; academic and informal) allowed the team to gather a very complete picture of the region and to cross-check opinions.
The process considered the character of the city as a whole, but the main focus was on elements that would be affected by the development. The bias, then, was toward character elements located near the development, and types of elements (mostly physical) that could clearly and directly be tied to impacts. The process could be adapted for more general planning situations or areas beyond the scope of single projects, but the EIS-based design of this character assessment works best for considering well-defined issues and places.
Using the EIS process as a framework helped to strengthen Phase 3 (mitigation), which is comparable to implementation stages in most processes. Because they are tied to the project approval process, the mitigation measures have a much greater chance of actually being implemented than do items in other processes, but the analysis does not include implementation measures beyond the development stages.
Examples
Snoqualmie, WA