Planning Document and Process Review

i. “Key Planning Issues”

The document “Key Planning Issues” is a kick-off for “Oahu 2035: General Plan Focused Updated”. The document briefly analyses eleven areas through the categories of “defining the issue”, “key trends”, and “general plan issues”. Although the document help readers have an overall understanding of challenges faced by Oahu residents, it should have also considered external trends, other local interests, and resource effective distribution.

The eleven areas considered were: future growth; regional population distribution; regional employment and mobility patterns; the changing character of population and housing, affordable housing needs; economic strength and prosperity; Waikiki future role as a visitor destination; other changes in the visitor industry; keeping agriculture’s future healthy; preparing for the impact of global warming; and adding sustainability as a fundamental city policy. Even though these eleven areas cover the City’s main concern over the future of Oahu, they have not included three other important areas for planning such as education, public health, and geopolitics.

According to 2011 State Education Rankings, Hawaii’s public schools rank 37th nationwide in Math and Science (The Huffington Post). Local leaders and planners should know that human capital consists in the best investment against growing hazard vulnerability, lack of resources, and financial uncertainties. Regarding public health, despite the State being ranked as the fifth healthiest in the nation, recent budget cuts, unemployment, and increasing demand for public health from immigrants have increasingly imposed an extra burden on Oahu’s planning process (KITV and American Public Health Association). As for geopolitics, the emergence of China as an economic and military superpower in the region and the bilateral treaties between the State and Pacific island nations have gradually changed the economic, political, cultural, and social scenarios on Oahu (The Economist and Census). Planners must include these elements in an envisioning exercise.

Group interests shape planning. According to the General Plan of 1977, Ewa area should have become by 2011 the second major center for economic activity on Oahu. Even though the document highlights few reasons for the failure of this project, the document could have also mentioned the conflicting private and public interests gravitating around the development of this area preventing job growth and an equal distribution of resources across the island. The same conflict occurs in housing, tourism, transportation, and agriculture. The City has expressed commitment to providing affordable housing to its residents; however, it has marginally blamed zoning and financial policies for not accomplishing the previous statement. In addition, the City’s has neglected to assess affordable housing in a context of increased demand for a scarce resource -- such as land -- resulting in price hikes.

In terms of tourism, the document has not provided clear alternatives for the development of tourism and value-added policies to this sector since local authorities and planners seem to act in unison with the current forces of mass tourism model witnessed in Waikiki. Planners could have designed alternative scenarios where the tourism industry would evolve by investing in new markets to reduce dependency and to increasingly divide its profit among residents by creating conditions for the appearance of more enterprises and high-paid positions. Concerning transportation, the current physical and mobility planning have failed to provide alternatives to the car mode. In the context of promoting housing density, means of transport like buses, bicycles and walking should be highly considered in decision-making process not only because they create better social environments but mainly because these modes effectively respond to the present responsibility over the effects of climate change on the next generations. Finally, in terms of agriculture, the planning document is aligned with the argument that local production should be restored and promoted. Planners, however, should also ponder on the local and global benefits of specialized markets in providing better and cheaper products to Oahu residents --and the world population --, in addition to the self-reliance ability of the local agriculture and the costs to compete against markets enjoying more competitive advantages.

Residents and planners have passionately argued for and against agriculture as a driver of public interest on Oahu. The main arguments for are that Oahu’s lands are fertile, reduce the dependency over imported food, and retain capital inside the State establishing a dynamic local market. The arguments against are usually related to the costs of producing locally, the ability to produce competitively at a large scale, and the opportunity cost of using this scarce resource for other purposes. As local planners have been largely influenced by interest groups and public authorities supporting the former position, planners should consider the latter scenario in order to contribute to the debate by offering alternative pathways. Assuming that exist localities presenting more competitive factors of production to grow crops at a lower marginal cost than Oahu farmers, planners should incentivize land use for other purposes than agriculture. By regulating and zoning Oahu’s land for housing, for instance, residents would enjoy more space for implementing affordable shelter programs, enjoy larger and more equipped recreational areas, increase its regional security by investing in military technology, foster an alternative and value-added development of socially responsible tourism, and promote knowledge-intensive economic sectors. This planning document should acknowledge that economic sectors based on knowledge present a higher multiplier effect -- resulting in more jobs and higher salaries -- than natural resources and capital intensive industries. Due to Oahu’s historical and geographic advantages, the alternative scenario of using scarce land for other purposes than extensive agriculture should be seriously considered by bearing in mind the importance of using public spaces for investments in services and technology, which in turn distribute financial resources among residents helping them achieve social equity.

ii. Tourism

Part two is a critique on the planning background material of the discussions carried out by the focus group in charge of tourism issues on Oahu. The first part summarizes reasons and proposed solutions followed by what should be carefully considered by planners and decision-makers.

The focus group meeting in tourism happened in September 2010. Different groups were represented. The attendees were North Shore Chamber of Commerce, Outrigger Enterprises Group, Hilton Grand Vacations Company, UH Economics Department, Governor’s Tourism Liaison, ABC Stores, Peter Apo Company, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Nature Conservancy, DPP, Hospitality Advisors, and Helber Hastert and Fee Planners. Before the meeting, the group received an email containing 1992 General Plan (GP), visitor industry analysis report prepared by hospitalizing advisor, draft meeting agenda, and a list of possible discussion questions. After the meeting, attendees produced a report agreeing on the revision of GP since the current status of the tourism industry is significantly different than in the 1970s, hotel occupancy has been reduced and replaced by enlarged rooms, and investments are needed to foster entrepreneurship. Attendees also expressed concerned over international competition from cutting-edge infrastructure being built in Asia and increasing costs of airfare slowing down the sector unless major transportation technology occurs.

Besides marketing concerns, attendees were also worried about the status of tourism activities and attractions, and planning integration. Poor signals, inferior public facilities, and lack of visitor information were identified as areas requiring immediate improvements. Regarding activities and attractions, the City has not been upgrading them showing as a result that the sector importance for the local economy has been neglected. Another point highlighted was the elaboration of the 1992 GP. Attendees stated that this document had addressed areas in isolation resulting in inconsistencies and contradictions between objectives and policies such as the promotion of tourism, transportation, and affordable housing at the same time as it advocates the preservation of agriculture and natural environment.

The group proposed specific solutions to different areas. In terms of activities and attractions, more investment in infrastructure and marketing is needed to compete against other destinations in the region. 1992 GP should be upgraded by integrating various plans and considering tourism impacts on subjected areas like environment, housing, and agriculture. Updated GP should also address tourism from residents’ perspective by investing in infrastructure and facilities that residents enjoy at the same time as they protect natural resources for future generations like beach parks - Portland, Oregon, is an example. The balance between the needs of the locals and tourism can be achieved by preserving open spaces, protecting natural resources that attract visitors, limiting urban growth boundaries, mitigating the volatility of the tourism sector, supporting sustainable agriculture through tourism, and integrating food production, environmental protection, and renewable energy. These objectives can be achieved by expanding the number of attractions like Hanauma Bay and Diamond Head hiking trail across the island and developing networks to alleviate congestion such as bus services to North Shore. With regard to culture, Native Hawaiians should be able to share local elements with visitors by developing a community-based tourism model. Makaha resort hotel and its golf course is a successful example of an enterprise that benefits the local culture, residents, and the tourism sector alike.

Concerning harbors, it was claimed that investments are necessary to increase the number of tourists coming from cruise lines and also because of business opportunities presented by the multiplier effect of investments in ocean-based accommodation. In relation to marketing, the tourism sector must be a strategic component in all plans; therefore, Hawaii Tourism Authority’s branding strategies should be incorporated by GP. Finally, in terms of secondary resort-areas, attendees defended a decentralized decision-making process so that a small-scale visitor accommodation can be built and function as an alternative to supplement the concentration of Waikiki hotels. Another concern over development was service providers operating illegally in residential communities -- like North Shore --, and so the need to enforce regulations while limiting site and scale for new investments. Development in Waikiki and Ko’Olina, for instance, should be limited.
The discussions carried out by the focus group on tourism can be criticized in different ways. As it is impossible to cover every element, topics to be covered next briefly reflect on how composition, methodology, ideology, and resource distribution can negatively affect planning.

Membership is a fundamental element of planning. Selecting who participates shapes the entire process of defining who benefits and who loses once public intervention takes place. In the case studied, even though the core is comprised of representatives from the private, public, community, and environmental organizations, it is clear that private organizations constitute a majority, that only organizations already benefitting from tourism were invited to the negotiation table, and that organized groups directly paying for tourism investments through taxes but marginally benefitting from them -- in addition to externalities created -- were intentionally left aside. By disregarding the positions of other actors such as unions and nongovernmental organizations, the planning process misses the opportunity to establish a dialogue and identify opportunities with economic sectors that represent a significant part of residents’ interests. In doing so, the implementation of policies tend to witness increased opposition leading to slower processes, higher costs, and less profitability in the long-term. National parks in Brazil, for instance, have had a limited number of members discussing purposes and vision for these areas so that local authorities have had to put off many of the planning ideas, faced increased costs delimitating and monitoring regulations, and not fully benefitting from the touristic potential of the natural environment (Oakerson, 1990).

Data input is another important element of planning. Once planners define which information, figures, and statements drive a meeting, they have set up the fundamentals from which every decision is made. In the case studied, facilitators had opted for information deriving from planning documents and tourism data analysis. Since these documents are restricted to one sector and one area, it risks making decisions that have not taken into account the importance of an economic sector closely connected with other fifty markets (Fletcher, 1989). In addition, by predicting economic growth solely based on the indicators of emerging markets -- like China and Korea --, planners risk providing public authorities with limited analysis on threats and opportunities. The main problem of tourism is volatility. Since this sector is not perceived as an essential service, it is the first item to be cut from family budgets in times of economic uncertainty. Also, Hawaii’s tourism model is heavily depended upon airplanes and cruise lines, which are immediately affected by geopolitical crises worldwide. This challenge is addressed by allocating resources in the local market and diversifying foreign markets. The islands of Canarias, in Spain, draws millions of thousands of tourists every year, but the rate of foreigners have increased in comparison with European tourists. Also, local authorities have invested in different local markets like education and agriculture to offset cyclical economic downturns on the national and regional markets (Herms, 2005).

Ideology is about values. The main belief among the members of the focus group is that market forces address nearly every problem faced by local communities. This assumption is identified when the document states that the group agrees that the City should foster entrepreneurship rather than exert political control; that protecting the environment, creating shelter and fostering agriculture and native cultural pride are logical market outcomes after investing in better facilities and attractions; and that regulations should only be enforced over actors profiting illegally from the tourism industry and whenever status quo faces increased competition. Market forces are driven by opportunity costs and profitability. Nevertheless, culture, land, and history do not necessarily follow laissez-faire rules. Public planning has the duty to protect the interest of those groups benefitting the least from market benesse. If nothing is done, dominant groups use power to overshadow competitors and acquire large chunks of land exacerbating social riots. Values, land-use, and memory should be daily instruments of any planning document. By enforcing land-use regulation and considering historical disadvantages, Oahu residents will stop categorizing based on subjective merit indicators but according genuine initiatives, characters, and peculiarities. Local values, after all, have definitely more commercial value than keeping Hawaiian culture off Makaha Resort’s fences (Hassan, 2000).

Equity is achieved by fair distribution of resources. These resources are land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship. Planners must provide data input on these elements so that factors of production can effectively influence decision-making processes. If land is concentrated at the hands of few, many others cannot have access to public services and facilities. If labor is considered only from a cost perspective, it creates a remuneration system incompatible with actual living costs. If low-income families do not enjoy access to instruments to produce on their own, they will be only contributing to accelerating social inequality. If people do not enjoy good public education and financial aid for professional growth, the market will increasingly become monopolized affecting innovation. The intrinsic dynamism of the tourism sector positively affects the distribution of resources. To achieve so, planners must consider the availability and access of resources by the entire community. By implementing democratic processes, planning helps a society to thrive in the long-term. This is the model adopted by the highest developed societies in the world -- the Scandinavian nations -- and the paradigm that Oahu’s planners could follow by not letting monopolies over land, furloughs in public schools, developers controlling political power, and only the affluent enjoying legal incentives and protections to start up a business. (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009).

iii. Nature, depth, and impact of public participation

Planning is messy. The process of inputting data to influence decision makers legitimizing public interventions involves a myriad of interests. The private sector is usually the dominant player. Corporations lobby for frameworks that allow profit maximization. The public sector guards the competing interests of sets of people. In this context, planners expand membership and the scope of problems to permit broad participation in decision making. Civil society organizations also play an important role in planning. Since the local government is not able to represent every group, alternative institutions gather people sharing same interests to voice their concern over the use and access of public goods. Converging and conflicting interests among businessmen, public authorities, and community leaders turn planning into a battle over concentration and distribution of power.

The main avenue for participation in Oahu planning process is joining community meetings. Individuals and groups participants are given the agenda of the gathering beforehand as well as key issues to be discussed. Questions and comments are written down and summarized to be later included in the minutes. These concerns guide the update of the general plan as well as technical discussions and commission review.
Oahu planning process presents advantages and limitations. Regarding participation, the main advantage is its invitation to individuals to join meetings and voice their concerns. Also, the early steps of this process provide an equal opportunity for different groups to participate in an organized fashion. The main limitation is locality. Individuals wishing to participate have to travel to the meeting. This decision not only increase costs for community members but also restricts the number of local feedbacks by deciding not holding community meetings. As for topics and framework, formality allows broad participation over a number of different topics in a democratic way. However, this same framework creates a false sense of broad scope for a process intrinsically more complex. In order to create an agenda addressing communities’ concerns, planners should set up preliminary meetings where informality allows passions to be expressed spontaneously without constraints.

Participation must be extended. Community meetings should be held in different localities, in addition to the provision of a framework for online inputs and fiscal incentives to individuals proposing written and oral testimonies. Public schools and community colleges could train individuals to write or videotape their concerns to public officials. Likewise, fiscal incentives for low-income regions would create an extra motivation for communities to organize themselves, to identify local issues, and to propose creative solutions. These initiatives aim to reduce the gap between public and private entities participating in the planning process. Oahu’s General Plan had seen a large number of private companies but few community leaders advocating for the betterment of marginalized localities. By supporting these initiatives, this document -- by encouraging broad participation -- shifts and distributes economic and political power among stakeholders.

People are busy and lack resources. Individuals and small community groups do not enjoy the same resources than large corporations and privately sponsored non-profit organizations. Therefore, poor localities tend to be underrepresented in updated planning processes whereas rich areas and private interests enjoy privileges by lobbying for public interventions meeting their interests. Other issues are accessibility and the understanding of information. The disadvantaged usually have more difficulty to keep up with the news as well as to organize personal and community concerns and voice them cohesively and coherently. To level the plain field, planners must assist these underprivileged groups by closely working with them so that narratives naturally emerge to influence policy making.

Planning is about collecting narratives -- the more, the better. Powerful groups enjoy economic backup, legal experience, and political influence to present their interests anywhere at any time. Small organizations and individuals, however, are pragmatic in distributing their time and limited resources as they usually operate under human and financial limitations to participate simultaneously in negotiation and implementation fields. Planning, however, is only considered a legitimate process if it allows broad participation among different stakeholders. In other words, complexity is a fundamental condition for establishing a democratic planning process. In this context, planners face the challenge of setting up a framework where opportunities are created and given to all those interested in participating. The ability of facilitating, summarizing, empowering, and finding common ground between competing discourses constitute the main skills and roles that public planners should daily and professionally incorporate and perform in order to anticipate problems and avoid the emergence of other issues while implementation takes place.

iv. Utility of Theory

Theory is a thinking tool. Concepts are the foundation of rationales. History, schools of thought, definitions, and categories help planners develop critical thinking over problems encountered on the ground. A planner equipped with theory is aware of the importance of stepping back to analyze the dancing floor from the balcony. Theory streamlines planning.

Equity depends on theory. As practitioners are frequently overwhelmed by daily work, it is crucial to ensure that decisions are made not on automatic mode. Practitioners must be able to identify vicious habits by incorporating analytical tools that allow decision making processes to be repaired and reinvented. Planning is an ongoing process with limitless interests. If practitioners ignore personal and collective trends, biases, and competing narratives, problems are not anticipated and implementation costs risk soaring due to social, legal, and environmental unexpected reactions. Planning theory reduces unknown costs.

Society is a complex system. As part of social science, planning interplays with economics, sociology, history, geography, political science, public administration, architecture, public health, travel and tourism, and other fields. Practitioners aware of this constant dialogue between planning and related fields are careful in their valued judgements on what fits best for a locality. Planning is, thus, an interdisciplinary area where different social theories come into play. Ignoring how one subject overlaps with planning theory is the same as prescribing a wrong remedy for a complex disease. Theory helps diagnose the real causes and prescribe the right remedy.

Some theoretical ideas have shaped the review and critique of this document. Deborah Stone analyzes equity through a distribution perspective. This analytical approach -- considering goods, services, wealth, income, health, illness, opportunity, and the disadvantage and how they are distributed within a society -- was the social justice leitmotif of this review. Another Stone’s idea incorporated in this paper is the concept of narratives as symbolic representations. Stone warns that “the problem of figures of speech is that they evoke a sense of urgency confining policy response and suspending critical thinking by reducing the scope of problems in order to make them more manageable. The solution is adopting larger discussions.” Michael Brooks has also presented interested concepts. The first is the notion that the first function of public planning is “the provision of data for decision-making” and even though many different agencies collect and provide data for public authorities, planners can especially influence decisions by working on data related to land matters. Another Brook’s idea contributing to this document is the framework of the Feedback Strategy (FB), which proposes six stages for evaluation and pays special attention to the interaction between planning and social and political environments. Finally, Collins & Ison ‘s ladder illustrating the stages of participation and how they correspond to changes in degrees of citizen engagement served as the foundation for the most of social critiques of this planning process review.

References

APHA (American Public Health Association). “The State of Public Health in Hawaii”. Nov 23, 2011. http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/03F42670-A37C-44FB-A4C8-E2F4E6F00776/0/Hawaii2011PHACTCampaignSheet.pdf

Census. “We, the Americans: Pacific Islanders”. Nov 25, 2011. http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-4.pdf

Fletcher, John E. “Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies”. Annals of Tourism Research. Volume 16, issue 4, 1989, pages 514-529.

Hassam, Salah S. “Determinants of Market Competitiveness in a Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry”. Journal of Travel Research: volume 38, number 3, pages 239-245. Washington DC: 2000.

Herms, Franziska. “Alternative Tourism on Gran Canaria”. Diplomica Verlag. Hamburg: December, 2005.

KITV. “Hawaii No. 5 In National Health Ranking”. Nov 22, 2011. http://www.kitv.com/health/26474371/detail.html

Oakerson, Ronald J. “Analyzing the Commons: A Framework”. Digital Library of the Commons. Indiana: 1990.

The Economist. “Facing up to China”. Nov 24, 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/15452821

The Huffington Post. “State Education Rankings: The Best and Worst for Math and Science”. Nov 21, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

Wilkinson, Richard G., Pickett, Kate. “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.” 2009: Bloomsbury Press. United Kingdom.