Simulation of a land-use planning process for
lands threatened by natural hazards
As part of the September 17, 2010, SFU CNHR workshop, the organizing committee will run an
exercise to simulate municipal land-use decision processes. The exercise will be conducted on Monday
September 13, 2010 at the simulation laboratory of the Justice Institute of British Columbia in New
Westminster, British Columbia. The simulation laboratory is operated in support of training programs
and as a community service.
Experts from various fields in municipal affairs evaluated and made recommendations on land-use
development proposals. Those proposals were based on real proposals of a Metro Vancouver
jurisdiction. The land to be developed in the exercise proposals, as well as in the real proposals, is
threatened by various natural and anthropogenic hazards.
Land-use proposal scenario
The land-use development-proposal scenario of the simulation exercise was based on the area bounding
a mountain creek that traverses an urban centre and drains into an ocean. The mountain creek is
susceptible to floods, and debris floods. Its headwaters are in a steep-walled drainage at high altitude
where landslides of glacial and recent bedrock decay material are known to have occurred and can be
triggered in the future. The catchment area has high rainfall, road systems that create slope instability,
and is susceptible to earthquakes.
The creek generally has steep-walled moderate gradient reaches that feed a few low-gradient reaches
with wider shallower valleys. Its flow varies substantially through the seasons; highest in late fall and
lowest in late summer. The catchment area lies outside the urban limits and is thickly forested on its
south facing slope.
The urban centre has permitted single-family housing up to parts of the creek below the upper
catchment bowl, has contained the creek flow in a large culvert in one section, traversed the creek with
bridges, and has a park and recreation facility along the lower reach. Municipal services along the creek
include the recreation facility and a fire hall. The creek is within 2 kilometres of a neighbouring
municipality along slope and traverses another muncipality downstream. The urban centre has a debris
flow warning system for the creek that is triggered when a certain volume of rainfall per hour is
exceeded.
The exercise had two parts, each of which was to lead to recommendations on implementation of
development proposals. The first evaluated a proposal to rebuild the fire hall along the upper reach of
the creek, and the second evaluated the hazard on various development proposals and future potential
development downstream from the fire hall.
Simulation process
The simulation was conducted in a simulation laboratory where the initial scenario and operational
inputs could be controlled, and the actions of participants recorded and assessed. Participants were
invited from a target audience of municipal personnel dealing with land-use proposals, strategic
planning and emergency management, and private sector professionals relied on by municipalities for
expert advice. A separate group of academics dealing with land-use issues in risk reduction were later
invited to take advantage of spaces available.
The simulation laboratory has four pods that can be operated simultaneously, and each pod can host six
participants. A control room has access to each of the pods to feed information to set the scenario and
its intended goals, and to respond to decisions and questions made by the pod participants. The control
room has facilities to record the action in each pod, and permits observers to assess and learn from the
problem solving approaches taken by each group.
Pod participants learned in general about the process of the simulation before entering their pods, and
each were told that the exercise was about the process and not the final recommendation. Inside they
learned about the development proposals they were to evaluate, the starting information, and they were
required to make a recommendation on how the development proposal would be accepted.
Pod participants were shown video vignettes to set the scene and provide information. They had access
to a written request for their input, maps, reports and a budget. They were told they had access to other
reports on file and to contractors that could conduct new studies for a fee.
Simulation evaluation
Four methods are used to evaluate the processes taken by each of the pods to arrive at development and
planning recommendations:
1.Control room observations made of the decision process.
2.Documents prepared by pod participants during their deliberation.
3.Plenary open discussions of the process by all pod participants.
4.Individual pod participant evaluation of the process and their involvement.
Control room evaluation
We observed the process each group takes to achieve its recommendation for a) comparison with a
standard risk assessment decision scheme, and b) events or decisions that changed the course of the
process. Each was video taped for reference during documentation.
Pod documents
Each pod prepared a work plan, comment sheet and recommendation report during their deliberations.
These were used to understand the guiding principles used by the group, and the influences that steered
their evaluation process.
Plenary discussions
After completing the morning and afternoon simulations, participants take the opportunity to discuss
how they feel about the experience and the key factors that influence that experience.
Individual evaluation
Participants answer multiple choice and spectrum questions about the deliberation process following
the exercise. Spectrum questions ask for your assessment of a situation from 1 to 10 (bad to good, low
to high, easy to hard, weak to strong, etc.....). Each participant used an electronic voting button, and the
resultant graph of choices would be publicly registered upon completion of the voting.