A Scary Story for Planners

Let me tell you
a scary story that you can use to frighten fellow planners at next week's
Halloween party. It's not just fun and games – this story is true and may
cause nightmares.

Sometime in the
near future, during a public meeting concerning land use policy reforms, a
critic will say in an athoritative voice, "Recent academic research shows that
smart growth policies are ineffective at reducing vehicle travel and climate
change emissions," and wave a copy of, Compact
Development And Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Review Of Recent Research,
published last year in the Portland State University Center
for Real Estate Quarterly Journal.

Some
decision-makers will find this persuasive because the article seemed to be published in a legitimate journal, and
so will choose to implement policies that increase sprawl and automobile dependency, creating
less affordable, more dangerous, less healthy, and more environmentally harmful
communities than people would rationally choose. And thus will have succeeded an elaborate
effort by the National
Association of Home Builders to justify sprawl.

This story
began on a dark and stormy night, or whenever the NAHB does its strategic
planning. As discussed in a previous column, An
Inaccurate Attack On Smart Growth, the NAHB sponsored a major research program intended to discredit recent research such as the report to Congress, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and the Urban Land Institute's Land Use and Driving: The Role Compact Development Can Play in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. They cherry-picked and misrepresented their own research results to claim that, "The existing body of
research demonstrates no clear link between residential land use and GHG
emissions and leaves tremendous uncertainty as to the interplay of these
factors," and "The assumption of a causal connection between density and GHG
emissions is based on prevailing beliefs within the planning community and not
on verifiable scientific research or analysis."

In fact, four of
their five researchers concluded that smart growth policies can significantly affect vehicle travel and emissions. The exception was PLU Adjunct Professor Eric Fruits,
whose report was particularly critical of smart growth. Fruits subsequently
published a summary article of his research in the PSU's Center for Real Estate Quarterly Journal, which he edits.

That article
contains what I believe are false statements and conclusions. In particular, it
claimed that "some studies have found that more compact development is
associated with greater vehicle-miles traveled," a statement based on a total misrepresentation of a fifteen-year-old article which simply presented theoretical analysis indicating that under some conditions a grid
street systems could increase vehicle travel compared with
hierarchical street systems. In fact, subsequent research indicates that grid street systems that increase roadway connectivity can significantly reduce vehicle travel.

This type of misrepresnetation is possible because the Center for Real Estate Quarterly Journal does not reflect the essential principles of a real academic journal. It
does not require peer review. It does not prevent conflicts of interest (the article was written by the journal's editor
based on his paid research). The article's subject is outside the Journal's scope (an understanding of real estate markets does not indicate an understanding of urban geography dynamics).

I raised these
concerns to PLU's Academic Dean, which, to the University's credit, lead to the following policy changes:

(1) A disclaimer will be
added that articles are not peer reviewed.

(2) A bio and picture of the
author will be added at the front of each article.

(3) The Quarterly will be
referred to as a "trade journal."

This type of conflict raises the epistemological question, that is, it forces us to examine the basis by which we evaluate information.
This is always important and has become more so in the Internet age,
where the quantity of information available can be overwhelming, which requires careful discernment of sources. In general, academic journals tend to provide higher quality information, but now, even they can be unreliable if special
interests are cleaver about manipulating them to achieve nefarious ends.

So, be afraid,
be very afraid, of efforts to misrepresent information. Arm yourself with a
skeptical eye, good research skills, and a
willingness to challenge inaccurate claims.

*     *     *     *

Of course,
biased and incomplete information is just one of many horrors that planners face. Angry mobs, excessive workloads, contradictory policies, and our own errors ("Opps, I forgot" is
never a pleasant response to a query by your boss or elected official). Please use
the Post New Comment option below to
share your own "horror story for planners".

For More Information 

Here
are some sources of guidance for evaluating information and research quality.

Susan Beck (2004),
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: or, Why It's a Good Idea to Evaluate Web
Sources, New Mexico State University Library (http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html).

CUDLRC (2009); A Guide To Doing Research Online,
Cornell University Digital Literary Resource Center (www.digitalliteracy.cornell.edu).

Economist (2011),
"An Array Of Errors: Investigations Into A Case Of Alleged Scientific Misconduct
Have Revealed Numerous Holes In The Oversight Of Science And Scientific
Publishing," The Economist, 10
September 2011; at www.economist.com/node/21528593.

Ann Forsyth (2009)
A Guide For Students Preparing Written
Theses, Research Papers, Or Planning Projects, www.annforsyth.net/forstudents.html.

Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Research Quality: Guidelines for
Scholarship, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/resqual.pdf.

Todd Litman
(2011), Critique of the National
Association of Home Builders' Research On Land Use Emission Reduction Impacts,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org
; at www.vtpi.org/NAHBcritique.pdf.
Also see, An Inaccurate Attack On Smart
Growth (www.planetizen.com/node/49772).

Quack Watch (www.quackwatch.com), is a guide to quackery, health fraud and intelligent decisionmaking.

Skeptic Society (www.skeptic.com) applies
critical thinking to scientific and popular issues ranging from UFOs and
paranormal to the evidence of evolution and unusual medical claims.

Wikipedia, Logical Fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies). This website lists and categorizes various analytic errors.