Community based land-use decision-making is often left to an oligarchy who are familiar with the planning process. Stakeholders are frequently under-represented, possibly because of their unwillingness to participate due to the unfamiliarity with the process. The workshop described here develops participants\u27 understanding of a land-use planning process and the complexity of socio-economic values using individual reflection and shared perspective through writing, model-making, presentations, and discussions. Using consensus-building strategies, along with a documentary film, participants engage in several hands-on group activities. Shared values in combination with new community perspectives are realized through a series of workshop activities

Kew, Barry W

Lee, Brian D

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 46 Number 5 Article 20 10-1-2008 A Workshop About Land-Use Decision-Making in the Context of Community/Societal Values Brian D. Lee University of Kentucky, blee@uky.edu Barry W. Kew The Pennsylvania State University, bwk2@psu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Lee, B. D., & Kew, B. W. (2008). A Workshop About Land-Use Decision-Making in the Context of Community/Societal Values. The Journal of Extension, 46(5), Article 20. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol46/iss5/20 This Ideas at Work is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesOctober	2008	//	Volume	46	//	Number	5	//	Ideas	at	Work	//	5IAW1A	Workshop	About	Land-Use	Decision-Making	in	the	Context	ofCommunity/Societal	ValuesAbstractCommunity	based	land-use	decision-making	is	often	left	to	an	oligarchy	who	are	familiar	withthe	planning	process.	Stakeholders	are	frequently	under-represented,	possibly	because	of	theirunwillingness	to	participate	due	to	the	unfamiliarity	with	the	process.	The	workshop	describedhere	develops	participants'	understanding	of	a	land-use	planning	process	and	the	complexity	ofsocio-economic	values	using	individual	reflection	and	shared	perspective	through	writing,model-making,	presentations,	and	discussions.	Using	consensus-building	strategies,	along	with	adocumentary	film,	participants	engage	in	several	hands-on	group	activities.	Shared	values	incombination	with	new	community	perspectives	are	realized	through	a	series	of	workshopactivities.	For	many	communities,	land-use	visioning	and	decision-making	are	often	difficult	and	complex.Consensus	building	among	stakeholders	representing	different	ideologies	and	motivations	abouthow	land	should	or	needs	to	be	used	can	be	overwhelming.	Opening	a	dialogue	aboutunderstanding	the	values	people	hold	for	agriculture,	urbanization,	conservation,	etc.,	is	one	wayto	begin	the	process.	This	article	describes	an	innovative	workshop	that	links	together	severalactivities	to	understand	landscape	values	and	community	land-use	decision-making,	similar	to	arational	model	described	by	Gallagher	(2002).The	workshop	explores	the	complexities	of	community	land-use	decision-making.	The	workshopincorporates	biophysical	implications	of	land-uses	as	well	as	the	socio-economic	and	personalvalues	of	a	real	community.	The	participants	develop,	construct,	and	present	an	imaginarycommunity	using	a	watershed	model	approach.	They	come	to	understand	the	balance	between	theresponsibility	to	protect	the	health,	safety,	and	welfare	of	citizens,	on	the	one	hand,	and	privateproperty	rights,	on	the	other.	The	participants	also	learn	basic	concepts	of	a	land-use	planningprocess.	The	workshop	can	be	structured	around	multiple	1-	to	2-hour	activities	or	a	daylongsession.	The	format	described	here	involves	pre-workshop	activities	that	contribute	to	laterdiscussion	and	hands-on	group	activities	accommodating	approximately	24	participants.ActivitiesThe	first	workshop	activity	has	participants	each	write	a	one-page	reflective	statement	aboutcommunity	land-use.	The	participants	are	given	questions	to	help	them	compose	their	reflection.Brian	D.	LeeAssistant	Professor	of	Landscape	ArchitectureDepartment	of	Landscape	ArchitectureCollege	of	AgricultureUniversity	of	KentuckyLexington,	Kentuckyblee@uky.eduBarry	W.	KewAssistant	Professor	of	Landscape	ArchitectureDepartment	of	Landscape	ArchitectureCollege	of	Arts	and	ArchitectureThe	Pennsylvania	State	UniversityUniversity	Park,	PennsylvaniaMbwk2@psu.eduExample	Questions:1.	 How	do	you	describe	your	home	community?2.	 What	impact	does	the	landscape	have	on	how	you	feel	about	your	community?3.	 How	was	the	land	used	before	it	had	your	home	on	it?Understanding	different	points	of	view	and	learning	about	other	communities	are	importantworkshop	objectives;	therefore,	the	second	activity	is	to	watch	a	documentary	film	entitled	LAND(and	how	it	gets	that	way)	(Brock,	2004).	The	film	traces	five	people	over	10	years	and	documentstheir	thoughts	about	the	meaning	and	uses	of	land	(Garkovich,	n.d.).	Once	the	workshopparticipants	have	viewed	the	film,	they	write	a	multi-paragraph	reflection	on	the	one	person	in	thefilm	they	consider	his/her	antithesis.Example	Questions:1.	 What	are	his/her	views	on	the	land?2.	 What	does	the	person	believe	about	property	rights?3.	 What	would	you	say	are	the	values	that	underlie	his/her	beliefs	on	these	issues?	Why?4.	 What,	if	any,	changes	did	you	see	in	this	person?The	reflection	helps	participants	understand	different	points	of	view,	even	though	they	may	notagree	with	the	person	in	the	film.	The	writing	exercises	are	usually	completed	without	conversationamong	the	participants	prior	to	the	first	workshop	discussion.	The	film	can	be	watched	as	a	groupor	by	individuals.Once	introductions	are	completed,	the	first	workshop	group	session	begins	with	a	discussion	of	thefilm.	This	activity	helps	the	facilitator	to	understand	the	initial	group	dynamics.	The	facilitatorfocuses	the	discussion	on	the	participants'	reactions	to	the	film.Participants	are	divided	into	four-	to	six-person	groups	for	the	next	activity.	The	small	group	task	isto	develop	an	idealized	community	land-use	vision.	To	help	groups	develop	that	vision,	participantsare	asked	to	write	what	the	newspaper	headlines	will	be	about	their	envisioned	community	in	10years.	The	groups	then	make	a	short	presentation	describing	their	visions.	The	facilitator	probesthe	groups	about	their	visions	and	the	decision-making	process,	particularly	with	respect	toconflicts.	These	activities	are	adaptations	of	Garkovich	(n.d.)	and	Brock	(2004)	material.The	next	major	activity	is	a	lecture	about	land-use	issues	tailored	to	the	participants'	needs.Traditional	land-use	planning	law	and	land-use	suitability	analysis	are	potential	topics.	Thefacilitator,	an	Extension	specialist,	or	other	expert	could	present	this	lecture.Following	the	lecture,	participants	are	challenged	to	give	physical	form	to	the	vision	described	bytheir	group's	newspaper	cover.	Prior	to	the	workshop,	a	multi-piece	cardboard	landform	model	isconstructed.	The	model	is	composed	of	four	to	six	pieces	(sub-models)	that	can	be	assembled	toform	a	single	larger	(4'x8')	model	for	use	in	the	next	two	workshop	activities.	The	small	groups	usestring	and	multi-colored	Post-It	paper	to	designate	land-uses	on	their	sub-models.	This	activityrequires	participants	to	go	beyond	talking	about	the	headlines	and	make	physical	land-usedecisions.Once	again,	the	groups	give	a	short	presentation	(3-5	minutes)	followed	by	discussion.	Theplacement	of	land-uses	is	a	complicated	process,	and	this	activity	helps	to	demonstrate	thedifficulty.	Participants	often	start	making	decisions	based	on	life	experiences,	but	this	activityencourages	insight	about	the	interrelated	linkages	between	the	biophysical	elements	andsocietal/community	values,	as	well	as	how	they	can	be	influenced	by	group	dynamics.The	next	activity	requires	participants	to	go	beyond	the	small	group	community	vision,	which	theyoften	think	about	as	an	isolated	or	island	environment.	In	this	activity,	participants	are	required	toassemble	the	larger	model	from	the	sub-models.	The	facilitator	guides	the	participants	to	highlightconflicts/synergies	among	the	smaller	community	visions	in	the	larger	context.	A	revised	vision	isthen	developed,	and	the	subsequent	land-uses	are	often	reconfigured.	Again,	this	activity	isfollowed	by	a	discussion	about	decision-making	and	group	consensus.To	conclude	the	workshop,	a	topical	lecture(s)/demonstration(s)	about	a	timely	issue(s)	ortechnique(s)	related	to	land-use	planning	are	presented.Example	Topics:1.	 New	By-Pass	Construction2.	 Bill	Board	Construction3.	 Agricultural	DistrictsConclusionRecurring	workshop	themes	included	an	increased	awareness	of	scale,	context,	and	communityconsensus	building.	In	addition,	there	is	a	sense	of	self	and	group	discovery	permeating	theactivities.	Most	participants	have	not	been	exposed	to	the	dynamics	of	planning,	let	alonelandform	models.	Thus,	the	workshop	allows	participants	to	visualize	new	perspectives	of	their	ownlandscape.	A	more	comprehensive	view	of	the	planning	process	and	an	increased	awareness	of	theeffect	of	individual	values	on	socio-economic	and	physiographic	elements	have	been	observed	byfacilitators	and	commented	on	by	participants.This	basic	workshop	has	been	modified	and	integrated	into	K-12	environments.	The	students	utilizerole-playing	techniques	to	gain	perspective	on	land-use	decision-making	in	the	planning	process.The	students	are	responsible	for	representing	stakeholders	ranging	from	individual	landownerswith	varying	socio-economic	backgrounds	to	government	administrators.The	novelty	of	this	workshop	is	the	integration	and	progression	of	the	activities.	Each	activity	helpsparticipants	discover	his	or	her	own	landscape	value	system	as	well	as	better	understand	otherparticipants'	perspectives	and	value	systems.	Participants	have	commented	that	the	mixture	ofindividual	and	group	activities	is	what	makes	the	workshop	beneficial.	Extension	agents	can	play	akey	role	in	organizing	and/or	facilitating	a	workshop	like	the	one	described	in	this	article	becauseagents	are	often	in	contact	with	many	different	stakeholder	groups	and	are	frequently	seen	as	asource	of	information	and	support	by	communities.ReferencesBrock,	W.	(Producer/Director).	(2004).LAND	(and	how	it	gets	that	way).	[Documentary	film].Harriman,	NY:	Walter	Brock	Productions.Gallagher,	T.	J.	(2002).	Decision	making:	An	architect's	model	for	Extension	applications.	Journal	ofExtension	[On-line],	40(2).	Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/tt1.htmlGarkovich,	L.	(n.d.).	Discussion	guide	for	Land	(and	how	it	gets	that	way).	Retrieved	September	19,2007	from:	http://www.landfilm.com/discuss.htmlCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

A Workshop About Land-Use Decision-Making in the Context of Community/Societal Values

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4083&context=joe

A Workshop About Land-Use Decision-Making in the Context of Community/Societal Values

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints