To Build or Not to Build a Road

Every summer, my husband and I roll back the canvas roof of our small Cit­roen 2CV and head out to explore small towns, farming communities, forests, and parkland along beautiful, picturesque rural roads that are untraveled by most Ontarians. Leaving highways behind, we meander through landscapes that open up unique visual and ol­factory experiences that enrich our days and be­come a staple in our store of happiest memories together.

Roads open up inimitable vistas and opportunities but, of course, they also have their costs, particularly when they take the form of large-scale highways that often infringe upon agricultural and wildlife commu­nities or exacerbate urban stress

What constitutes a good road? And how do we decide when it is appropriate to build a new road? As urbanist Jane Jacobs puts it, “how to accommodate transportation without destroying the related intricate and concentrated land use?—this is the question.”

Presumably, decision making in such a case ought to be driven by more than mere sentimentality. In the words of the National Research Council, “practical decision making begins by identifying the elements of a responsible and competent decision-making pro­cess.”

At the same time, it is important to recognize that complex environmental decisions—from how to tackle global climate change to planning megalopolitan set­tlements—often must be made in the face of scientific uncertainty. In such cases, judgment calls are made, and, therefore, we need to better understand both the nature and the significance of taken-for-granted val­ues, attitudes, and perceptions.

I begin this paper by identifying some essential el­ements of what might typically be described as a “ra­tional” process of decision making. I then proceed to describe how such a rational environmental decision procedure must reflect not only narrowly logical rea­soning processes but also essential elements of moral virtue, wisdom, and, ultimately, a respect for sense of place.

FROM IDENTIFYING OBJECTIVES TO VIABLE ALTERNATIVES: THE PLACE OF VALUES

From engineering consulting firms to governmen­tal environmental impact assessments, technical mod­els are utilized to ensure that complex problems are addressed in a comprehensive manner. Decision trees, cost-benefit analyses, and decision-making matrices that employ sensitivity analysis or analyze expected monetary value are examples of such tools.

While each model incorporates distinct strategies, it is feasible to draw from these examples six major ge­neric steps that are typically reflected in such models, despite their variations. These include:

• Identify the project objectives, problem, and opportunities.
• Identify constraints that possible solutions must respect.
• Identify viable alternative solutions.
• Select evaluation criteria of alternatives.
• Evaluate alternatives and select the preferred option.
• Monitor and adjust the strategy, as necessary, documenting lessons learned. 

Like the technical models listed above as well as other similar decision-making procedures, this six-step decision-making process aspires to be rational, logical, and, thereby, comprehensive. Yet I would contend that genuine thoughtfulness is not necessar­ily achieved simply by virtue of such sequential logic.

Embedded in such apparently “objective” models are personal biases, value judgments, hidden para­digms, and different worldviews. Genuinely rational choices—those that aim for wisdom over mere techni­cal efficiency—are made only if these taken-for-grant­ed values and assumptions are explicitly addressed. The fact is that “value choices are often hidden in the simplifying assumptions of analytic techniques, and the assumed values may not be universally shared.”

It is important to recognize that values and as­sumptions impact every phase of decision making, no matter how logical, linear, and “objective” that process appears. For instance, value judgments very much shape the first step in the decision-making process, where project objectives, problems, and opportunities are identified and bounded. The fact is, as energy sci­entist Amory Lovins points out, that “the answers you get depend on the questions you ask.”

So, despite the title of this paper, it is important to note that the problem to be addressed here may not be properly scoped in the form of the engineering ques­tion whether to build a road. Rather, the problem may actually be that travel times are currently too long; or perhaps, as in the case of some First Nations com­munities in Northern Canada, there may be a lack of easy access. Maybe the issue may be as broadly scoped as to ask the question about how to build a healthier, more sustainable community overall. The opportuni­ties identified may certainly include the construction of a road, but, alternatively, a preferred option may consist of improvements to public transport or rail systems instead. After all, in the words of Jane Jacobs, “The more space that is provided for cars in cities, the greater becomes the need for use of cars”—which, in an era of global climate change, is hardly a wise course of action. Unless one scopes the problem sufficiently broadly, productive alternatives may simply be missed.

by Ingrid Leman Stefanovic, Center for Humans and Nature |  Read more:

Image via: