A presentist bias is common in much planning work; excessive attention is given to short term problems ahead of long term interests. That is the thesis of a great small book that is part of the local BWB Text range: “Safeguarding the future. Governance in an uncertain world”. The book is written by Jonathan Boston and while it is mostly about central government, it mentions the work of local government and urban planning. Environmental management is singled out as an area where a presentist bias is most acute. ”The task of protecting long-term environmental interests is particularly demanding. It is here that the risks of a presentist bias in democratic decision-making are often the greatest. It is here, therefore, where those seeking to safeguard the future through better anticipatory government must devote special attention”.
A presentist bias means that ‘slow burning’, long term problems like climate change, low productivity growth and the cumulative effect of poorly managed transport and land use developments do not get the attention that they need. Problems are passed onto future generations or opportunities to improve conditions are missed.
As an aside the book mentions the Global Risks Report 2017 prepared by the World Economic Forum(1) as an example of a list of risks that tend to get downplayed because of their long term nature. A global risk is defined as an uncertain event or condition that if it occurs, can cause significant negative impact to several countries or industries within the next decade. One of the risks listed is: “Failure of urban planning”. This risk is described as “Poorly planned cities, urban sprawl and associated infrastructure that create social, environmental and health challenges”. Not high house prices, unaffordable housing or not enough housing. Maybe the report authors were thinking of China or India when they identified the risk, not Auckland. Who knows, but interesting that poor urban planning is seen as a societal risk.
Where does the presentist bias come from? Partly, the bias towards the short term reflects the uncertainties and risks when looking long term - on both the upside and downside. Too grim a view of the future and opportunities and benefits will be missed, too rosy a view and future costs may build. So best stick to the more certain near term. But that is not the only reason for a presentist bias.
Another reason is that where there is an inter temporal exchange of costs and benefits, then getting to a durable solution is hard work. Boston notes the decisions are hard to take and to stick to where the following circumstances apply to inter temporal exchanges:
- There is a big gap between the timing of costs and benefits
- There is large uncertainty over the timing and nature of costs and benefits
- Costs and benefits are not commensurable, such as financial costs and intrinsic environmental benefits
- The costs fall disproportionately on some sectors rather than others, while benefits are thinly spread over a wider group;
- The risks or effects at issue are not readily observable - they are ‘creeping’ effects.
Sounds like many urban planning problems.
One response to this presentist bias is to reduce the potential for the takeover of planning by short term interests by limiting the ambit of urban planning: reduce submission rights, lessen the role of top down plans, open up competition in land and infrastructure markets. But that approach doesn’t deal with the presentist bias. It may lessen the routes by which the bias can be expressed, but it does not counter the bias. The other option of countering the short term bias by strengthening the need to, and benefits of, looking and acting long term sounds more complex and difficult. But this option must surely be the better option to take.
Part of the books solution to the ‘presentist’ problem is to embed long term thinking into statutory provisions. The book mentions the requirement in Section 5 of the RMA to consider the foreseeable needs of future generations when managing resources, and the requirement under the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 to use a 100 year time frame when considering coastal natural hazards as one of the few places in our legislation where there is a need to look long term.
These are useful references. I think sec 5 2(a) is one of the most underused parts of the RMA. But are they enough by themselves? Helpful but not sufficient would be my answer. The Safeguarding the Future book lists a range of possible actions, but they tend to be directed at central government policy development. Things like constitutional reform, locking in commitments, improving long term reporting and improving foresight capacity.
What are some other prescriptions to address the long term? Here the OECD has provided some good pointers. The recent OECD report on NZ’s environmental performance(2) includes a section on urban environments. Many of the report’s ideas for better urban planning are useful and support a much stronger role for planning than just managing externalities. They (and those in the Safeguarding the Future book) tend to mirror my own thoughts in my previous post, and given this is my blog, I can enjoy the echo chamber effect of the internet!. It will be interesting to see whether the soon to be released Productivity Commission report takes the same tack.
So what are some of the OECD proposals? After the obligatory moan that planning (or lack of it) has caused rising house prices, the report gets into some good proposals. The better ideas are actually in the text, rather than the summary of actions at the end.
Spatial planning gets a big tick. The OECD say it is a tool to integrate land use, infrastructure and transport planning. They say that spatial planning should be given greater recognition and made mandatory for major cities. All good. However I must admit I am never quite sure how spatial planning is different from any other form of planning. Why can’t we just call it urban planning? But never mind if it is old wine in a new bottle. In Auckland we have had various goes at spatial planning, including the 1999 Regional Growth Strategy and the 2010 Auckland Plan. Both had a degree of legislative support, and both have had mixed outcomes. The OECD do not really say how the spatial plan would lead all the other plans, apart from some sort of alignment requirement. Alignment between central and local government? More specifically it seems to miss the point of how a spatial plan that addresses economic, social, cultural and environmental matters gets translated into an RMA plan that principally deals with environmental management. We need an urban planning act.
The recent NPS on urban development capacity is identified as asking for a long term view but also of being a bit one sided. Long term planning should consider climate change mitigation and adaptation goals, for example. The report says that land release plans should, in addition to identifying scope for urban expansion and redevelopment, also identify ‘no go’ areas. Careful consideration of land supply is needed as urban expansion is irreversible with lock ins that may create long term environmental and financial costs.
The OECD say that the government should provide more extensive national guidance to ensure that local planning encourages good urban design outcomes (i.e. promote positive externalities, not just manage the negative ones). Better guidance may help to short circuit arguments about what urban design should and should not address.
Participation in plan making and implementation is important to the functioning of communities and governments. At some point, there will be resistance to evermore limited input. Not all input is NIMBYISM, but NIMBYSIM components need to be tempered.
There needs to be a more positive approach to the benefits that development can bring such as including affordable housing, improved open spaces and green infrastructure in development. The ability to fund these positive attributes through the sharing of land value uplift associated with good urban planning is noted.
There needs to be a more positive approach to the benefits that development can bring such as including affordable housing, improved open spaces and green infrastructure in development. The ability to fund these positive attributes through the sharing of land value uplift associated with good urban planning is noted.
(1) https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2017
(2) http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/environmental-pressures-rising-in-new-zealand.htm
