Using best available science to protect critical areas in Washington state: challenges and barriers...

Using best available science to protect critical areasin Washington state: challenges and barriers to planners

April Mills & Tessa Francis & Vivek Shandas &Kara Whittaker & Jessica K. Graybill

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Urban development has profound impacts on ecological patterns and processesmaking the scientific information required for developing environmental ordinances centralfor mitigating these negative ecological impacts. Washington State requires that plannersuse the best available science (BAS) to formulate land use ordinances as part of the state’sGrowth Management Act (GMA). We present empirical findings describing challenges toplanners in defining “best available science” and using BAS to create local ordinances thatbalance development needs with natural resource protection. We interviewed city andcounty planners (and their consultants) in western Washington to determine what they finduseful about BAS, whether or not BAS is applicable to their jurisdictions, and whatconstraints they experience in reviewing and using BAS to create or update their land useordinances. Our results suggest that applying the BAS requirement is particularly difficultin urban areas. Specifically, planners had difficulty applying results from researchconducted in systems dissimilar to their urban landscapes. These challenges to plannerswere exacerbated by (1) a lack of resources and (2) political tensions among stakeholderswith competing values in urban settings. We conclude with recommendations for improvingthe consideration of science in statewide land-use planning.

Keywords Best available science . Critical areas . Planning . Policy . Urban

Urban EcosystDOI 10.1007/s11252-008-0071-x

A. Mills (*)Seattle Public Utilities, 700 5th Ave Suite 4900, P.O. Box 34018, Seattle, WA 98124-4018, USAe-mail: amills@u.washington.edu

T. FrancisDepartment of Biology and Urban Ecology Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

V. ShandasNohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

K. WhittakerCollege of Forest Resources and Urban Ecology Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

J. K. GraybillDepartment of Geography, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, USA

Introduction

Because humans are becoming predominantly urban, the main interactions people will havewith nature will be in the city (Botkin and Beveridge 1997; Crane and Kinzig 2005). Thereis a long-standing awareness of both the value of sensitive natural areas and the risks posedto these areas in urban settings (McKinney 2002; McPherson et al. 2005; Meyer et al.2005). Natural areas in urban settings support a variety of ecosystem services, some ofwhich are arguably more important in a human–centric environment. These ecosystemservices include: vegetation to improve air quality (McPherson et al. 2005; Nowak andDwyer 2000); forests and wetlands to improve water quality (Boyer and Polasky 2004;Nowak and Dwyer 2000); flood control and stormwater management (McPherson et al.2005); climate stabilization (Brazel et al. 2000; McPherson et al. 2005; Nowak and Dwyer2000); nutrient cycling (Boyer and Polasky 2004; Grimm et al. 2005; Meyer et al. 2005);water supply (Jenerette and Larsen 2006); biodiversity (Barthel et al. 2005); human health(Nowak and Dwyer 2000); daily access to recreation, and the aesthetic enjoyment of naturalareas near where people live and work (Barthel et al. 2005; Boyer and Polasky 2004; Kline2006; Shandas 2007).

Land-use planners are charged with conserving urban “environmentally sensitive areas”(or critical areas) (Randolph 2004). As a result, planners, as managers of urban systems, arerequired to re-envision approaches for integrating critical areas into urban developments.This integration poses several challenges (Beatley 2000), some of which may be mitigatedby using scientific information. A variety of principles and frameworks have beendeveloped to integrate scientific information into urban land management. The literatureaddressing these approaches is empirical as well as theoretical and includes advocatingecosystems approaches (Christensen et al. 1996), multi-species approaches (Jackson et al.2001), protection of habitat patches (Soule 1991) and wildlife corridors that cross multipleproperty types (Beier and Noss 1998; Collinge 1996), evaluating alternative/futurescenarios in a public process (Ahern 1999; Steinitz 1997; White et al. 1997), andcollaborative environmental planning and decision making, particularly informed byindicators of self-organizing urban systems (Innes and Booher 1999). In addition torecommending planning approaches and mechanisms, some have proposed ecological“principles” to guide planning actions and processes (Dale et al. 2000; Flores et al. 1998;Zipperer et al. 2000). These ecological principles have been recommended as keycomponents to guide land-use decisions and achieve the long-term sustainability ofecosystem services and benefits.

Scientific approaches have been used to solve environmental problems for almost half acentury, as reflected in a flurry of US environmental statutes enacted during the 1960s and1970s (Carden 2006). One reason for this focus is the perceived ability of science to act as aunifying force for achieving environmental policy when there are many conflicts amongdifferent stakeholder interests (Carden 2006). Indeed, science has been perceived as sovaluable that environmental policies such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), theMagnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976), and the EndangeredSpecies Act (1973) now include requirements for using “best available science” as anobjective standard against which controversial decisions could be measured. Theserequirements have resulted in questions over what constitutes best science, who definesbest science, how much is “enough” best science, and how does best science interact withother social and economic priorities.

However, conflict between science and policy does not end even when the details of arequirement are well outlined or when stakeholders are interested in incorporating science

Urban Ecosyst

into policy. There have been multiple observed and hypothesized problems with the actualtransfer of scientific information into a policy form (Edgar et al. 2001; Kinzig and Starrett2003; Policansky 1998). One potential problem is that miscommunication or misrepresen-tation of issues may arise between creators and users of scientific information (Norton 1998;Owens et al. 2006; Weber and Word 2001) or among different groups of users of scientificinformation when political dimensions of a debate are mixed with scientific discourse(Bocking 2005). A related issue that can prevent scientific information from informing policyis a cultural divide that exists between scientists and managers. This results from mismatchesin goals, frameworks, and expectations, such as patterns of information dissemination andacquisition (Leschine et al. 2003), different ideas about how science can inform decision-making (Szaro et al. 2005), and differences in what constitutes “proof” (Kinzig and Starrett2003), which partially results from differences in roles and responsibilities (Watson-Wright2005). Sometimes scientific information intended for planners or policy-makers is notincorporated into policy because of a lack of relevance, credibility, or legitimacy perceived byend users (Andrews 2002; Cash et al. 2006; Evans 2006). Finally, when science users are notinvolved in the entire process of its creation, there can be a lack of investment or ownership(Pierce et al. 2005). Because of these and other issues, the most relevant and “best science”may not be used to inform planning and policy (Cort 1996; Evans 2006).

The responsibility of urban land use decisions typically befalls local jurisdictions (Kaiser etal. 1995) and those jurisdictions may or may not use scientific information to frame the typeof management schemes they employ. When scientific information is used to inform land usedecisions, few studies have empirically examined how planners and policy-makers experiencethe process of using science and, specifically, what the barriers are in that process (but seeYli-Pelkonen and Niemela 2006 and Francis et al. 2005) and what are ways to overcomethem. The consideration of scientific information in the planning and policy-making processhas been central to Washington State’s recent court order to “consider the Best AvailableScience” (Copsey 1999) when developing conservation ordinances to protect critical areas.We have taken advantage of this unique opportunity to investigate whether using the bestavailable science to create conservation ordinances works for planners in westernWashington. Our aim is to identify the difficulties that develop in a specific case whereplanners are required to use science for protecting natural resources. We then discuss ways inwhich the evidenced gap between planners and scientists can begin to be bridged.

Background

In 1990, the Washington State legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) inresponse to concerns of citizens and politicians that population growth and urban sprawlwere threatening the “environment, sustainable economic development, and the health,safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state” (Growth Management Act1990). Within the GMA are 14 planning goals that include encouraging urban developmentin areas where services and infrastructure already exist, encouraging economic develop-ment, protection of private property rights, and protection of the state’s environment. Toprotect the environment, all participating cities and counties must designate and describehow they will protect critical areas, defined as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish andwildlife conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas,through critical areas ordinances (CAOs).

In 1995, the GMA was updated to require that these CAOs include BAS, stating“counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and

Urban Ecosyst

development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition,counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measuresnecessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries” (Growth Management Act 1990).

While a model ordinance is provided as an example by the State, Washington’s legislationexplicitly intends for local jurisdictions to fashion their own ordinances with guidance fromvarious agencies, such asWashington State Department of Community, Trade, and EconomicDevelopment (DCTED), the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 365-195 2001), andon-line tools and references. DCTED developed guidance as rules intended to helpjurisdictions interpret and comply with the GMA BAS requirements (WAC 365-195).These rules include what BAS means and what types of sources count as BAS. Non-scientificinformation is allowed to inform the designation and protection of critical areas. However, itcan only be considered as supplemental and cannot replace scientific information(Washington State DCTED 2003). The Critical Areas Assistance Handbook also outlinesa process and lists techniques for identifying, designating, and protecting critical areas.Further clarification of the BAS requirement has resulted from public objections to aspecific designation and protection of a critical area being filed and addressed by theWestern Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board (Copsey 1999). Inaddition to these rule and definition clarifications, example ordinances, and processguidance, DCTED provided a bibliography of scientific literature that pertains to protectingcritical areas (Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science 2002).

Many planners commented that the model ordinances were too restrictive on their abilityto accomplish other GMA goals and land use decisions and instead chose to search forrelevant data within their own jurisdiction, evaluate scientific literature, look to otherjurisdictions, or hire consultants to research and write the ordinances. Specifically, for thejurisdictions that were first to respond to the CAO requirement, smaller jurisdictions tended torely on the scientific information provided by the state, look to other jurisdictions, and let thescientific information guide the policy process. Medium-sized jurisdictions relied more onlocal scientific data, did not tend to look to other jurisdictions, but instead looked to politicalinfluences to guide decisions. Larger jurisdictions, including many counties, generated theirown science, communicated with and often informed other jurisdictions and state agencies,and let the science lead decisions (Francis et al. 2005). In this paper, we explore what aboutthe scientific information was useful for planners, whether and how it is applicable towriting their conservation ordinances, and what constrains their review of BAS.

Methods

Study area

We identified the 9 counties and their 112 cities selected by the state to update their CAOby December 2004 (Fig. 1). Through a telephone survey, we determined which of thesecities and counties had completed at least 50% of their BAS review, and used this cutoff toidentify potential respondents involved in the BAS review or the writing of the updatedCAO. Our final sample represents 21 (19%) of the 112 cities and 6 (67%) of the 9 counties.

Data collection

Using a semi-structured interview protocol, we interviewed all city and county planners (N=20)and consultants (N=21) who met the above criteria and were responsible for the BAS review

Urban Ecosyst

specific to wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Each jurisdiction wasrepresented by one to three people, depending on the number involved in the update process.Each interview was conducted independently. Interviews consisted of 29 open–endedquestions that were recorded on audiotape and then transcribed (see Appendix for thecomplete set of interview questions.)

Initial analysis

First, we performed a content analysis of the textual data generated in our interviews(Glaser and Anselm 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990). We used Atlas.ti (Scientific SoftwareDevelopment, Berlin, 1997) for organizing and coding the transcripts. The process ofcoding categorizes responses into common themes, making them amenable to analysis.Some of the themes or codes were created a priori, while others were developed in responseto reading the interviews. All coding was checked by at least two authors independently.Results in this paper are reported per jurisdiction, making no distinction between plannerand consultant responses. The number of coded responses to each question does notnecessarily correspond to the number of people interviewed per jurisdiction. If multiplerespondents in the same jurisdiction gave the same response, it was only counted once. Insome cases, a single respondent gave multiple responses to a single question, in which caseeach code was counted.

Secondary analysis

Some responses or themes of responses occurred consistently across most interviews. Todraw out the subtleties of these similar responses, we reanalyzed each interview transcriptaccording to specific themes, thus further exploring the information contained in each

Fig. 1 Washington State counties with the earliest deadline for adoption of a critical area ordinance update(dark gray). (Adapted from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/washington_map.html)

Urban Ecosyst

interview. This secondary analysis provided insight into each general theme and ensuredthat our coding process captured the intended meaning of each response.

Statistical analysis

To test whether some interview responses were more common than others, and therebydetermine which were the leading concerns among all interviewees, we performed chi-square goodness-of-fit tests (SYSTAT 11, 2004) on tables of the response data (i.e.contingency tables), testing whether the observed frequency of responses differedsignificantly from an expected null distribution.

Results

Initial analysis

Our results are presented as coded responses to each interview question in quantitativevalues, representing the percent or number of jurisdictions indicating the same response. Inall cases, the frequency of responses varied significantly from the null distribution(Table 1).

“What qualities or characteristics of BAS make it useful to you?”

The majority of jurisdictions (85%) responded that they searched for science that wasdirectly applicable to the characteristics of their jurisdiction or to the protection of theirspecific critical areas (Fig. 2). Thirty-five percent of jurisdictions indicated that “credible”BAS is useful, meaning that either a scientist with a good reputation conducted the study orthe study was rigorous. Thirty-one percent of jurisdictions responded that “understandable”BAS is useful, meaning either the science is easy for the respondent to understand or easyfor them to explain to the planning commission, city council, or public. Another commonresponse (27% of jurisdictions) was that BAS is useful if it is either politically feasible ormeets with the state’s approval.

We further divided the most common response, that what makes BAS useful is that it is“applicable,” into sub-categories to better understand its meaning (Fig. 3). The mostcommon meaning expressed for “applicable” BAS was “site-specific” (58%). Site-specificresearch was described as useful if it had a direct correspondence to the uniquegeographical context of the jurisdiction or its critical areas, to the particular species ortypes of habitat present, or to the ecological function of interest in urban areas, such asstormwater management. Site specificity was sometimes defined broadly. One respondentsaid “…at least if it’s the right coast, West Coast not East Coast,” implying that much of theBAS was considered relevant only when applied to regions of the country where theresearch was conducted. Another respondent indicated a desire for BAS relevant to specificsub-basins within a watershed in their jurisdiction.

The second most frequent definition of “applicable” was science that has an “urbanapplication” (35%; Fig. 3). Twenty-seven percent of respondents did not define BASapplicability and those responses were coded as “generally applicable”. Eight percent ofrespondents stated that applicable BAS addresses specific impacts found in theirjurisdiction, while 4% of respondents described applicable BAS as predictive of outcomesof various management strategies (e.g., stream buffers). Finally, 4% of respondents

Urban Ecosyst

prioritized timeliness of literature and data, claiming that much BAS is already out-of-date,and therefore not applicable.

“How well does BAS apply to critical areas in your jurisdiction?”

The majority of jurisdictions stated that BAS was not applicable to their jurisdiction(Fig. 4). When expanding on why BAS was not applicable, 64% of jurisdictions expressedthat BAS was not applicable to their critical areas because it does not address degradedurban environments. More specifically, some respondents stated that scientific research was

0

5

10

15

20

25

Applicable Credible Understandable Political

Num

ber

of ju

risdi

ctio

ns

Fig. 2 Responses to the question“What qualities or characteristicsof ‘best available science’ make ituseful to you?” for all jurisdic-tions responding (n=26). Somejurisdictions provided responsesfitting into more than one cate-gory, therefore total responsesexceeds number of jurisdictions

Table 1 Observed and expected frequencies for responses to interview questions: (1) What qualities makeBAS useful to you? (2) How is “Applicable” BAS defined? (3) When BAS is not applicable, in what way isit lacking? (4) Are there any constraints on your review of BAS?

Question Response Observed frequency Expected frequency

Qualities of BASa Applicable 22 11.5Credible 9 11.5Understandable 8 11.5Political 7 11.5

Definition of “Applicable”b Site-specific 15 5.8Urban application 9 5.8Generally applicable 7 5.8Addresses impacts 2 5.8Predictive 1 5.8Current 1 5.8

How is BAS lackingc No urban information 16 6.2No site-specific information 9 6.2Some habitats underemphasized 5 6.2Does apply 5 6.2Don’t know 1 6.2Don’t need BAS 1 6.2

Constraintsd Resources 21 12.25Politics 14 12.25Science 12 12.25None 2 12.25

a X2 =13.0, 3 degrees of freedom and p=0.005b X2 =26.9, 5 degrees of freedom and p<0.001c X2 =26.1, 5 degrees of freedom and p<0.001d X2 =15.1, 3 degrees of freedom and p=0.002

Urban Ecosyst

often conducted in upland or forested areas, not in the lowland degraded urban areas thatbetter characterize their jurisdictions.

Thirty-six percent of jurisdictions stated that BAS did not apply well to their criticalareas owing to a dearth of site-specific information. This response category included threemain sub-categories of comments. First, respondents cited a paucity of information abouttheir particular watershed sub-basins. Second, interviewees commented specifically thatwetland protocols were based on model wetlands with different geomorphology than thatfound in their jurisdiction, e.g., “…where [the State has] complex methodologies, say forwetlands, that are really based on a model wetland that’s taken in the Puget Sound whichhas different soil characteristics from what you find in [this] County….” Third, respondentsclaimed that most BAS focuses on small, high-gradient streams instead of large floodplainstreams more typical of urban systems, e.g., “Lots of literature is done on steeper parts of astream gradient and then applied to low gradient areas. They need more studies in urbansettings, at low elevations, in floodplains, and at river mouths.”

Respondents also said that the applicability of BAS to their critical areas varied byhabitat type. Respondents in the 20% of jurisdictions with this response stated that theycould find BAS relevant to wetlands, streams, and anadromous fish habitat. However, theyhad difficulty finding data for upland wildlife habitat, and most BAS seems to focus onlyon priority species or species on the UNESCO Heritage list, for which local inventories arerarely available.

Only 20% of responding jurisdictions said that BAS applies well to their jurisdictions. Oneof these respondents stated that existing BAS was easy to apply because steep slopes alongtheir creeks create pre-existing large buffers, which follows many BAS recommendations.Most of these respondents made the distinction between BAS being applicable (i.e., that itmatches their conditions) and the protection measures derived from BAS being feasible forother reasons. One respondent did not know whether BAS was applicable and another

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Not Urban Not site-specific

Wrong habitat type

BAS is applicable

Don’t know Don’t needBAS

Fig. 4 Reasons why BAS islacking in applicability to criticalareas in western Washingtonjurisdictions (n=37)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Site-specific

Urbanapplication

Generallyapplicable

Addressesimpacts

Predictiveof

outcomes

Current

Num

ber

of ju

risdi

ctio

ns

Fig. 3 Specific responses withinthe response category “applica-ble” (n=22) from the question inFig. 2

Urban Ecosyst

respondent stated that their critical areas were already protected, so there was no need tocreate an ordinance to protect them.

“Are there any constraints on your review of BAS?”

We identified four general responses to this question: resources, politics, science and none(Fig. 5). Seventy-eight percent of jurisdictions commented that money and time (resources)are considerable constraints on their ability to review BAS. The second most commonconstraint was politics (52% of jurisdictions). The most frequent response within thatcategory was that recommended habitat protection measures that stem from BAS are oftenconsidered politically infeasible, especially in urban areas that are tasked with accommo-dating future growth and development. Political infeasibility in this context encompassesboth conflicting requirements within the GMA, such as the need to increase urban densitywhile protecting critical areas, and conflicts between stakeholders’ interests, includingbusiness/corporate development, private property rights and environmental interests.

Science was noted as a constraint to BAS review by 44% of jurisdictions (Fig. 5). Themost frequent response (30% of jurisdictions) within this category was that BAS lacksrelevance. Fifteen percent of jurisdictions commented that BAS was conducted in ruralareas and thus is not relevant to their urban conditions. Fifteen percent of jurisdictions notedthat there is sufficient information for protection of fish habitat because of researchsupporting the listing of numerous salmon species in the Pacific Northwest in the 1999Endangered Species Act (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FisheriesService 2005), but that data and recommendations for other species and habitats arelacking.

Secondary analysis: Problems with applying BAS in urban ecosystems

An emerging theme in our interviews (81% of jurisdictions) was that the application ofBAS to urban areas is problematic. This theme was prominent in all of the above interviewquestions. A detailed review of interview transcripts in our secondary analysis elucidatedfour major reasons why respondents identified existing BAS as inapplicable to their urbanenvironments.

The predominant perception among the respondents who had problems applying resultsfrom BAS in urban areas was that most scientific research was conducted in rural or pristineforested environments and thus was not relevant for developing protection ordinances in thedegraded landscapes of urban jurisdictions. We observed considerable frustration amonginterviewees due to the perception that the state agencies responsible for reviewing and

0

5

10

15

20

25

Resources Politics Science None

N

umbe

r of

juris

dict

ions

Fig. 5 Responses to the inter-view question, “Are there anyconstraints on your review ofBAS?” (n=27)

Urban Ecosyst

providing lists of approved BAS had prioritized protection of critical areas over considerationof other political and economic development interests, such as commercial expansion andresidential development. For example, one common perception was that state agencies hadrecommended a one-size-fits-all width for stream buffers for all jurisdictions based onecological functions in upland, forested, pristine stream conditions, including for jurisdictionswith lowland, degraded lotic ecosystems. One respondent summarized this by stating that, “thebuffers have shocked some people, especially on some streams where they’re gigantic.” Thus,many respondents remarked that the land use context and the level of urbanization is animportant consideration when applying BAS to developing critical area ordinances. Forexample, one interviewee pointed out that restricting further development by requiring largebuffers in an already highly developed area that clearly does not provide the ecologicalfunctions intended by these protections (e.g., shade, woody debris) was nonsensical.

A second issue that emerged from the interviews regarding applying BAS in urbanenvironments was that ecological functions valued in urban environments are different fromthose in undeveloped and less developed areas, where most of the scientific research isconducted. For example, flood control is an ecosystem service that is lost in urban areas andcostly to replace (Daily 1997). The one type of BAS that respondents consistently cited asapplicable to urban areas was stormwater management research. In contrast, the ecologicalvalue of large woody debris in rivers was considered less relevant by respondents. Woodydebris provides habitat for aquatic species and structures hydrological and sedimentaryflows in rivers and streams, but in urban environments woody debris is seen as anavigational hazard and is often removed. Respondents suggested that many such “natural”functions are absent or reduced in an urban environment, and the focus of critical areaprotection should instead be on ecological functions that are achievable and valuable inhighly populated areas.

In addition to the aforementioned challenges, many respondents stated that the BAS-based recommendations by Washington State agencies are, although desirable, politicallyinfeasible. The majority of respondents who stated this also indicated support for theprotection of critical areas, but felt that protection must be balanced with a jurisdiction’sother goals, especially those related to accommodating population growth within theGMA’s urban boundaries. One respondent said, “What is applicable for rural is notapplicable for urban. [My job is to] find out what is applicable for urban, then do the act ofbalancing.” “Balancing” means that jurisdictions must consider and address multiple—andoften conflicting—goals of the GMA, such as increasing density within the urban growthboundary while protecting critical areas also within that boundary. One respondent notedthis conflict, stating that because their jurisdiction is almost completely developed, applyingthe State’s recommended buffer widths would leave no more land to accommodateincreased population density within the urban growth boundary.

A final theme, cited by a small minority of respondents, challenged altogether the valueof protecting critical areas in urban environments, or at least prioritizing protection equallyin areas inside and outside of the urban growth boundary. Some of these respondents wereconcerned about protecting and encouraging certain types of wildlife in high populationcenters. A representative response, for example, was, “We don’t want cougars in urbanareas, and we don’t want bears in urban areas. We do have deer; do we want to encouragedeer to live out next to major highways? I wouldn’t recommend it.” Another respondentexpressed difficulties with the CAO update process saying that if urban land is preservedrather than used to accommodate increased density within urban growth boundaries, lessdeveloped areas would be targeted for development instead, impacting larger areas of lessdisturbed habitat.

Urban Ecosyst

Discussion

In their efforts to satisfy the mandate to designate and protect critical areas using BAS,planners in Washington State are challenged with the ability to obtain available, relevant,credible, understandable science and for this science to be sufficiently compelling to unifydifferent stakeholders. Our data suggest that this is particularly challenging in urban areas,given that the mandate requires science to be considered before other concerns. Moreover,our interviewees expressed a need for science that is relevant to degraded urban environments(particularly regarding the impacts already incurred), that is site-specific, that considerspolitical implications, and that addresses the habitat types present in their jurisdiction.

The first question that arises is whether or not there is sufficient, relevant scientificinformation available and, if yes, is the problem, instead, with access, interpretation, orapplication of the science? We conducted a brief analysis of the availability of literature onthe functions and values of urban ecosystems to determine whether there exists an adequatebody of research on this subject or if planners’ complaints about research bias towardspristine systems are correct. To simplify the analysis, we limited our focus to literatureaddressing functions and values of wetlands in urban systems. We began with the BAScitation list provided by DCTED on their website, assuming that this is the most easily-accessible compilation of relevant literature on the subject available to all jurisdictions(Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science 2002). Nine of the 12references related to wetland functions and values included information on wetlands inurban systems, and several of them also included more urban wetland references in theirbibliographies. Further, a search of the primary literature using ISI Web of Science (ISIWeb of Knowledge, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, 1900–2008) on the terms(wetland* and urban) returned 635 results, approximately 15% of which were referencesfrom research conducted directly on urban wetlands. We also searched (wetland* and urbanand function*) which returned 13 urban citations of a total of 39, and (wetland* and urbanand buffer*) which returned 8 urban citations out of a total of 41. Finally, as evidence thaturban wetlands are becoming a more prominent focus of the wetlands research community,a special issue of Wetlands, the Journal of the Society of Wetlands Scientists was devoted tosustaining multiple functions in urban wetlands (Volume 24, Issue 4, December 2004).Therefore, it appears that while the wetlands literature is not dominated by researchconducted in urban ecosystems, there is an adequate and growing collection of informationon the functions and values of wetlands in urban settings.

An alternate interpretation of the lack of available, relevant, credible, understandable,and compelling science is the need to improve planners’ ability to adapt existing science tolocal situations. Because no two systems are exactly alike, the need to adapt results to localsettings emerges. The State agency responsible for enforcing the BAS amendment,DCTED, has recognized this need and recommended that meaningful application ofexisting science to planning goals occur when planners and scientific professionalscollaborate (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Develop-ment 2003). However, many small and some medium-sized jurisdictions do not have theresources to engage scientists in such consultation (Francis et al. 2005). One approach tosolving this problem would be for the State to fund consultants or staff to adapt existingscientific information to a local jurisdiction’s critical areas. Because of limited resources,this support could be offered through a need-based application process. This collaborationmay also elucidate other tools that would be useful to develop such as that mentioned byone respondent: the need for wetland identification protocols that were relevant to the soilsin their jurisdiction.

Urban Ecosyst

Our respondents also stated that BAS per se is not their main problem in developingCAOs; rather, the major constraints seem to be resource availability and the need to balancepolitical forces and stakeholder interests. With respect to the constraint of resourceavailability, the State tried to provide resources through small grants that jurisdictions couldapply for. To anticipate conflict with political and social pressures, the State intendedjurisdictions to first identify science-based options for protecting critical areas before socialand economic considerations could water down these recommendations (Copsey 1999).The reasoning behind this prioritization is that it was assumed that planners do not know ifthey have designated and protected the values and functions of their critical areas withoutreliance on BAS. The mandate requires that a jurisdiction must first understand and clearlystate the protection recommendations based on BAS. Then, if they compromise theserecommendations, they must provide justification that will be subject to review by the State.However, clearly the planners and consultants we interviewed, on the whole, either disagreewith these approaches or find them infeasible.

Simply mandating protection of critical areas based on BAS does not solve the largestproblems planners face in writing the ordinances. Rather our respondents’ commentsindicate that they need credible and understandable BAS to help them explain and defendthe ordinances in their political settings. This can be overwhelming for planners who do nothave scientific training or sufficient staff to take on this requirement, though DCTEDprovided clear guidelines with regards to this constraint and this guidance was followed bysome jurisdictions (Francis et al. 2005). While some researchers call for more and bettercommunication to solve this type of problem (Barbour 1980; Bradshaw and Borchers 2000;Lubchenco 1998), Evans (2006) disagrees, stating that because of the epistemologicaldifferences between planners and scientists, transferring science to a planning context is notfeasible, and instead science must be translated. This is further supported by the fact thatDCTED provides BAS already synthesized and with pre-packaged recommendations(Washington State DCTED 2003), but this does not seem relevant, politically feasible, oreven desirable to many planners, especially those developing critical area ordinances forurban environments.

The primary difficulty that planners face in writing these ordinances may lie in their ability tocommunicate with and involve multiple stakeholders, and where appropriate, defend(rhetorically, legally, and technically) the protection of critical areas in urban settings tomultiple stakeholders, particularly to private property owners. While the State emphasizes theprovision of habitat as the main value of critical areas, the citizenry may not agree with orunderstand the value of urban critical areas as natural habitats. Collaborative discourse andeducation among planners, scientists, policy-makers, and the public regarding the value ofurban critical areas as habitat, as well as other ecosystem services, may prove useful (Roux et al.2006). Most useful for western Washington planners may be the provision of rhetorical, legal,and technical arguments for protecting critical area values and functions, as well as examplesof what has worked in other jurisdictions, so that planners can be confident in defendinglegally these propositions. Instead of just providing a model Critical Area Ordinance thatusually overwhelms, seems infeasible, or just doesn’t make sense to planners in urbanenvironments, a, perhaps, anonymous, web-tool for conversations between planners, Stateagency staff, and scientists could elucidate the kinds of arguments and models that would beuseful. The struggle is ultimately to provide tools and information that are easy to access,understand, and use (namely, affordable), to enable planners to be able to use this informationwith confidence in a political setting that ranges in values regarding land use, and to offerguidance for satisfying seemingly contradictory goals such as increasing population densityand protecting critical areas in an urban environment.

Urban Ecosyst

Stepping back and considering how this communication can be fostered in the future,interdisciplinary training for scientists and planners may be able to play a valuable role. Inpart, the limited interaction of planners with scientists may stem from the distinct culturesthrough which they are trained, or the way each discipline defines the problem. Forexample, coursework in environmental planning rely largely on case studies where thefocus is on the local context, drawing from the individuals who inhabit a place, theirknowledge, preferences and behaviors. On the other hand, the study of ecology in the citymay address relationships about everything except humans. Several recent examplessuggest that the divide between planners and scientists has decreased. The MillenniumEcosystem Assessment and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are globalexamples in which natural and social scientists collaborate to study the ecology of the cityby involving humans in the study of urban ecosystem processes (Carpenter and Folke 2006;IPCC 2007).

On a national scale, transdisciplinary teams of environmental policymakers andresearchers either reorganize scientific information together to better match interests oftheir audience, or co-produce knowledge together (Pohl 2008). Finally, on a local level,climate information is included in local watershed management after an overhaul of themanagement system from a “command and control”—type system to one based on adaptivemanagement strategies, where scientific experts and other stakeholders engage in “sociallearning” together and scenarios and trade–offs are employed (Vedwan et al. 2008). Perhapsby drawing on and studying these models of collaborative, policy–relevant investigations,planners and scientists can better coordinate their investigations into regional environmentalchallenges. Specifically for Washington, DCTED could sponsor workshops and confer-ences for planners and scientists to share information and work together on solving existingproblems.

Another difficulty with using BAS in urban environmental policy is the conflict betweenthe protection of critical areas and the need to densify development. One requirement forcounties and cities that must fully comply with the GMA (i.e., jurisdictions with largepopulations and high rates of growth) is to coordinate where growth will occur for the next20 years based on projections by the Washington State Office of Financial Management.Counties, consulting with their cities, must designate urban growth areas (UGAs), withinwhich urban growth is to be encouraged and outside of which urban growth is to bediscouraged. Targeting growth requires urban planners to both increase population densityand protect critical areas from development. Highly urban areas also face redevelopmentpressures, which reveals a different suite of challenges in land already subject todevelopment and at least partially degraded. Restoration of these areas would be requiredto achieve the environmental goals of the GMA, since many urban critical areas are sodegraded that they are perceived as unworthy of protection. However, this is costly andrequires resources scarce in many jurisdictions. To overcome these challenges, creativecollaborations such as jurisdictions partnering with university scientists to identify the bestplaces for urban environmental conservation and then forming partnerships with nonprofitorganizations to restore degraded urban areas may be required.

Another approach to the challenges of densifying urban centers while retaining somecritical aspects of ecosystem function may come from focusing on retaining criticalecological processes. Encouraging alternative designs for redevelopment in urban centersthat emphasize “green infrastructure” (e.g., biofiltration swales, green roofs, rainwaterreuse, etc.) may minimize the impacts of densifying development and support theecosystem services that are most beneficial in an urban environment (Johnson and Hill2002). These approaches can be encouraged through requirements for new development to

Urban Ecosyst

satisfy green design objectives, such as Seattle’s new Green Factor. Ultimately, theseapproaches only work when the residents, Council, and the politicians of a jurisdictionsupport these goals, and planners can be key leaders in garnering support for these types ofsolutions.

Conclusion

Our findings show that for the implementation of Washington State’s CAO requirement,science does not easily transfer into policy and planning, especially when concerningconservation of urban critical areas. When required to first use scientific information toidentify the critical areas in a jurisdiction before deciding how to protect them, plannerswere limited by the lack of site-specific, understandable, credible science coupled withpolitical and financial constraints. In addition, our respondents were conflicted aboutmeeting the dual goals of growth and conservation in urban areas, and the lack ofunderstanding and convincing arguments for the value of protecting critical urban areas,particularly on private property. For scientific information to be applicable and relevant, wesuggest that planners and policy makers be involved in the process of producing scientificknowledge. This increases planners’ ability to understand, interpret, translate, and conveyscience in applied settings. Additionally, involvement of scientists in planning activitiesgives scientists greater understanding of how science may be used, hopefully leading tomore applicable and useable science.

Scientific arguments combined with value-centric rhetoric may not be sufficient toconvince the public or make planners feel confident in their ability to protect these criticalareas. Instead, a process-oriented approach that integrates values across multiple stake-holders with science as a framework such as with ecosystem-based management may bemore effective (Slocombe 1998). A participatory process designed to aggregate values in adecision-making framework, supported by science, (Regan et al. 2006) could allow for themain goal of achieving critical area protection to be the highest priority (Knight et al. 2006).Opportunities for allowing planners, policy-makers, agency scientists, academic scientists,and the public to come together and identify shared goals for achieving environmentalmanagement goals has been successful in other venues (Regan et al. 2006; Szaro et al.2005; Watson-Wright 2005), and provides the basis for further developing such processesin urbanizing areas. This co-production of knowledge could alleviate the perception thatBAS is inadequate for designing critical area ordinances in urban areas.

Given the resource constraints cited by many planners, it may seem infeasible forplanners to participate in the creation of relevant scientific information or to engage in sucha substantial process as ecosystem-based management. This is not easy to resolve, as itinvolves channeling resources to change expectations about the integration of science intopolicy and fundamentally challenging the separation of science from the policy andplanning spheres. This shift would need to be motivated at multiple levels so that (1)training prepares planners and scientists for such interdisciplinary interactions, (2) scientificinstitutions assume some of the economic constraints by collaborating with planners inlocal political contexts, and (3) urban ecosystem stewardship and education programs aresupported by state agencies and non-profit groups. In Washington State, this could beaccomplished through collaborative web-based discussions, providing more useful toolsbased on these discussions than the existing model ordinance, workshops sponsored byDCTED where co-production of knowledge can occur, and the State providing scientificstaff to assist small and medium-sized jurisdictions with the application of existing science

Urban Ecosyst

to their specific locale. If institutional support is established for the process of conservingurban open spaces and awareness of the many benefits of this protection is increased,perhaps the conservation of natural areas in an urban environment can be betterintegrated, understood, and appreciated with the values of the people who call these areastheir home.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Gordon Bradley, Clare Ryan, Marina Alberti and the Urban EcologyIntegrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program for suggestions to improve themanuscript. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (IGERT-0114351).

Appendix

The following is the full interview conducted with planners in western Washington State, aswell as the consultants they hired, associated with the update of critical areas ordinances(CAOs) in their jurisdictions. The interviews were conducted primarily face-to-face, and thequestions are a mix of three types: open–ended, fixed response, i.e. yes/no, and scalequestions. The interviews were taped and later transcribed, and the text was used inanalyses presented in the main article. We do not present results from all of the datacollected below in the present article.

Introduction spoken to interviewee prior to beginning interviewWe are interested in the science–policy relationship, and our goal is to understand how

the critical areas ordinance update process varies across jurisdictions and what factors canexplain this variation. Specifically, we are focusing on wetlands, fish and wildlife habitatconservation areas, and anadromous fish.

Questions to planners:

1. Within your department, please explain the main steps in the update process, andidentify the main people involved and their roles.

2. What other groups are part of the update process and how are they related to yourdepartment and each other?

3. What stage in the update is your jurisdiction currently in?

Questions to consultants:

1. Please explain what you were specifically hired to do for the city or county’s CAOupdate.

2. How extensive of a review were you tasked with?3. How far into this process are you?

Questions to all:

1. Has your jurisdiction completed a critical areas inventory? How detailed is it?2. Has your current CAO changed since the last CAO?3. In a general sense, how much has it changed?4. More specifically, what types of changes occurred?5. Do you expect that this update process lead to additional variances or exemptions in

your new ordinance?6. Considering all the changes you’ve just described, what are the main factors you think

are responsible for these changes?

Urban Ecosyst

7. Are any of the changes being made to the current CAO a direct result of your BASreview? If yes, which ones? Please describe why. If no, please describe why not.

8. (If update not fully completed) Do you anticipate the final draft of your Critical AreasOrdinance will be different from your current draft? On a scale of 1–5, how much doyou expect it will change?

1 2 3 4 5 ?No minor change moderate change significant change very sig. change don’t know change (too early)

9. In addition to your Critical Areas Ordinance, does your jurisdiction have othermeasures or regulations to protect or conserve specific critical area types?

10. What is your working definition of BAS?11. What types of scientific information constitute BAS?12. How did you compile your BAS list? For example, did you start with an existing list?13. Are you familiar with theBAS list prepared by the state Office of CommunityDevelopment?

a. Does your bibliography vary from it?b. How?c. Why?

14. What qualities or characteristics of BAS make it useful to you?15. When there is conflict in BAS, how do you decide what BAS to include in making

recommendations for the CAO?16. What types of information do you pull from BAS?17. Using an example, could you describe how you synthesize multiple ideas, numbers,

or information found in BAS?18. If BAS suggests a range of biophysical criteria to protect a critical area type, how do

you decide what criteria to recommend for the CAO?19. How well does BAS apply to the critical areas in your jurisdiction?

a. Can you describe why/why not using an example?

20. Are there any constraints on your review of BAS?21. (Only for those who have completed their update process) Did your BAS review lead

to any specific biophysical changes?

(If YES) Was one of those changes in your buffer widths?(If YES) Can you identify any specific BAS that led to the buffer width change?If the BAS didn’t lead to that change, how did you arrive at the specific change?(If NO) Why not?Were there any other specific changes to the biophysical criteria?

22. We’re interested in three main types of critical areas. I’d like to know which of themthis jurisdiction has.

a. Wetlands?b. Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas?c. Anadromous Fish?

23. I’m going to read you a direct quote from the RCW (36.70A.172) related to CriticalAreas Ordinances and then ask you to interpret three parts of it.

Urban Ecosyst

24. “In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and citiesshall include the best available science in developing policies and developmentregulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas.”

a. For each CA type you just listed, how do you interpret “designating and protecting”?b. For these same critical areas, how do you interpret “functions and values”?c. How do you interpret “shall include the best available science”?

25. Are you working with scientific experts on this update? (If yes) What kind?26. On a scale of 1–5, what is the priority of the update process for your jurisdiction?

1 2 3 4 5No priority Please explain. minimum priority moderate priority high priority very high priority

27. Is there a specific person or group who is making the update a priority? (If yes) Whoand why?

28. Does this priority impact the way the science is reviewed or how the ordinance isupdated? (If yes) How?

29. What proportion of your time is devoted to the update process?30. Are there any competing environmental regulatory issues you are dealing with?

References

Ahern J (1999) Spatial concepts, planning strategies and future scenarios: a framework method forintegrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Klopatek J, Gardner R (eds) Landscapeecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

Andrews C (2002) Humble analysis: the practice of joint fact-finding. Praeger, Westport, CTBarbour I (1980) Technology, environment, and human values. Praeger, NewYorkBarthel S, Colding J, Elmqvist T et al (2005) History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban

cultural landscape. Ecology and Society 10(2):10–37, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art10/ Cited 24 Apr 2007

Beatley T (2000) Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners. J Am Plann Assoc 66(1):5–20doi:10.1080/01944360008976080

Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:643–663 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x

Bocking S (2005) Protecting the rain barrel: discourses and the roles of science in a suburban environmentalcontroversy. Env Polit 14(5):611–628 doi:10.1080/09644010500257896

Botkin DB, Beveridge CE (1997) Cities as environments. Urban Ecosyst 1(1):3–19 doi:10.1023/A:1014354923367

Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24(4):744–755 doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0744:VUWARO]2.0.CO;2

Bradshaw G, Borchers J (2000) Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. ConservationEcology 4:7 http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol4/iss1/art7 Cited 24 Apr 2007

Brazel A, Selover N, Vose R et al (2000) The tale of two climates: Baltimore and Phoenix urban LTER sites.Clim Res 15(2):123–135 doi:10.3354/cr015123

Carden K (2006) Bridging the divide: the role of science in species conservation law. HELR HarvardEnviron Law Rev 30(165)

Carpenter S, Folke C (2006) Ecology of transformation. Trends Ecol Evol 21(6):309–315 doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.007

Cash D, Borck J, Patt A (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decisionmaking: comparative analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Forecasting Systems. SciTechnol Human Values 31(4):465–494 doi:10.1177/0162243906287547

Urban Ecosyst

Christensen N, Bartuska A, Brown J et al (1996) The report of the ecological society of America committeeon the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691 doi:10.2307/2269460

Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science—Washington State Office of CommunityDevelopment (March 2002). http://www.cted.wa.gov/uploads/BAS_Citations_Final.pdf Cited May 19,2008.

Collinge S (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architectureand planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36:59–77 doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00341-6

Copsey A (1999) Including best available science in the designation and protection of critical areas under theGrowth Management Act. Seattle Univ Law Rev 23(1):97–143

Cort C (1996) A survey of the use of natural heritage data in local land-use planning. Conserv Biol 10(2):632–637 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020632.x

Crane P, Kinzig A (2005) Nature in the metropolis. Science 27:1225 doi:10.1126/science.1114165Daily G (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCDale V, Brown S, Haeuber R et al (2000) Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land.

Ecol Appl 10:639–670Edgar B, Shofield N, Campbell A (2001) Informing river management policies and programs with science.

Water Sci Technol 43(9):185–195Evans J (2006) Lost in translation? Exploring the interface between environmental research and

policymaking. Environ Plan A 38(3):517–531 doi:10.1068/a37393Flores A, Pickett STA, Zipperer WC et al (1998) Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan

landscape: the case of a greenspace system for the New York City region. Landsc Urban Plan 39:295–308 doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00084-4

Francis T, Whittaker K, Shandas V et al (2005) Incorporating science into the environmental policy process:a case study from Washington State. Ecology and Society 10(1):35–52 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art35/ Cited 24 Apr 2007

Glaser B, Anselm S (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. AldinePublishing Company, Chicago

Grimm N, Sheibley R, Crenshaw C et al (2005) N retention and transformation in urban streams. J N AmBenthol Soc 24(3):626–642

Growth Management Act, Revised Code of Washington, Title 36, Chapter 70A (1990)Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Metropolitan development as a complex system: a new approach to

sustainability. Econ Dev Q 13(2):141–156 doi:10.1177/089124249901300204IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) The Physical Science Basis: summary of

Policymakers in Geneva. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UN Environment Programme(UNEP). http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ Cited 28 May 2008

Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH et al (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastalecosystems. Science 293(5530):629–637 doi:10.1126/science.1059199

Jenerette G, Larsen L (2006) A global perspective on changing sustainable urban water supplies. GlobalPlanet Change 50(3–4):202–211 doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.01.004

Johnson B, Hill K (2002) Ecology and design: frameworks for learning. Island Press, Washington, DCKaiser EJ, Godschalk DR, Chapin FS (1995) Urban land use planning,, 4thth edn. University of Illinois

Press, Urbana, ILKinzig A, Starrett D (2003) Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32

(5):330–335 doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032[0330:CWUACF]2.0.CO;2Kline JD (2006) Public demand for preserving local open space. Soc Nat Resour 19(7):645–659 doi:10.1080/

08941920600742419Knight A, Cowling R, Campbell B (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action.

Conserv Biol 20(2):408–419 doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00305.xLeschine T, Ferriss B, Bell K et al (2003) Challenges and strategies for better use of scientific information in

the management of coastal estuaries. Estuaries 26(4B):1189–1204Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science

279:491–497 doi:10.1126/science.279.5350.491McKinney M (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52(10):883–890 doi:10.1641/

0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2McPherson G, Simpson J, Peper P et al (2005) Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J For 103

(8):411–416Meyer J, Paul M, Taulbee W (2005) Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J N Am Benthol

Soc 24(3):602–612

Urban Ecosyst

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office. (2005) ESASalmon Listings: Salmon Populations. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Index.cfm Cited 24 Apr 2007

Norton B (1998) Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists in environmental policyformation. Ecol Appl 8(2):350–364 doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0350:IECTRO]2.0.CO;2

Nowak D, Dwyer J (2000) Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser J (ed)Urban and community forestry in the northeast. Plenum Publishing, New York

Owens S, Petts J, Bulkeley H (2006) Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment.Environ Plann C 24:633–643 doi:10.1068/c0606j

Pierce S, Cowling R, Knight A et al (2005) Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning:Interpretation for implementation. Biol Conserv 125(4):441–458 doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.04.019

Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11:46–53doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Policansky D (1998) Science and decision making for water resources. Ecol Appl 8(3):610–618 doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0610:SADMFW]2.0.CO;2

Randolph J (2004) Environmental land use planning and management. Island Press, Washington, DCRegan H, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicholls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in

environmental management. J Environ Manage 80:167–176 doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.09.004Roux D, Rogers K, Biggs H et al (2006) Bridging the science–management divide: moving from

unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1):4–23http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/ Cited 24 Apr 2007

Shandas V (2007) An empirical study of streamside landowners’ interest in riparian conservation. J AmPlann Assoc 73(2). doi:10.1080/01944360708976151

Slocombe D (1998) Lessons from experience with ecosystem-based management. Landsc Urban Plan 40:31–39 doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00096-0

Soule M (1991) Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners. J Am Plann Assoc 57(3):313–324doi:10.1080/01944369108975502

Steinitz C (ed) The Students of the Fall 1996 Design Studio (1997) An alternative future for the region ofCamp Pendleton, California. Harvard Graduate School of Design. Cambridge, MA, USA. http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/depts/larchdep/research/pendleton/ Cited 24 Apr 2007

Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, LondonSzaro R, Boyce D, Puchlerz T (2005) The challenges associated with developing science-based landscape

scale management plans. Landsc Urban Plan 72:3–12 doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.011Vedwan N et al (2008) Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida: characteristics,

impacts, and limitations. Water Resour Manage 22:699–718 doi:10.1007/s11269-007-9187-7Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Title 365, chapter 195 (2001).Washington State Department of Community Trade, and Economic Development. (2003) Critical areas

assistance handbook: protecting critical areas within the framework of the Washington GrowthManagement Act. http://cted.wa.gov/site/745/default.aspx Cited 24 Apr 2007

Watson-Wright W (2005) Policy and science: different roles in the pursuit of solutions to common problems.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:241–296 doi:10.3354/meps300241

Weber J, Word C (2001) The communication process as evaluative context: what do nonscientists hear whenscientists speak? Bioscience 51(6):487–495 doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0487:TCPAEC]2.0.CO;2

White D, Minotti P, Barczak M et al (1997) Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change.Conserv Biol 11(2):349–360 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95458.x

Yli-Pelkonen V, Niemela J (2006) Use of ecological information in urban planning: experiences from theHelsinki metropolitan area, Finland. Urban Ecosyst 9(3):211–226 doi:10.1007/s11252-006-8591-8

Zipperer W, Wu J, Pouyat R et al (2000) The application of ecological principles to urban and urbanizinglandscapes. Ecol Appl 10(3):685–688 doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0685:TAOEPT]2.0.CO;2

Urban Ecosyst