Volume No. 10, 2001
Barriers to Use of the GAP Database by Local and Regional Land Use Planners in New Mexico
This project builds on a growing body of research, beginning with the New Mexico Gap Analysis Project (NM-GAP) in 1996 (Thompson et al. 1996) and resulting in publication of an assessment of gap analysis data by the New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (Deitner et al. 1999). Employing data from interviews with planning and development officials in 25 organizations across New Mexico, we explore whether and how they use data from NM-GAP. Specifically, we examine the extent of use of GAP materials and identify barriers to the use of GAP data in decision-making processes.
Twenty-five officials were interviewed from ten counties, seven Indian nations, and eight regional development organizations (RDOs). The 25 organizations reflect one potential client group that may benefit from GAP data. We designed an open-ended interview guide to learn (a) how planning decisions are made and (b) the extent to which local governments use NM-GAP data. Interviews were transcribed from tape recordings and supplemented by field notes. Content analysis was employed because it aids in identification of patterns in question responses and provides researchers the flexibility to incorporate information that emerges during the interview process (Feldman 1995; Miles and Huberman 1994).
The level of use of the NM-GAP data by local governments is low; 16 of the 25 jurisdictions were not even aware of it. Only two, both regional planning agencies, used the database. The Council of Governments (COG) that serves the Albuquerque metropolitan area was the only organization to use the GAP database to any significant extent. However, a planning specialist familiar with the COG contends that the RDO actually "did little with GAP data" (Czerniak 2001). The only other agency using GAP materials was the South Central COG, where the official interviewed explained that he was using the GAP database only "sporadically or spasmodically."
Initially, we thought that this meant that more work had to be done to publicize the availability of GAP data to local planners. However, in reviewing the interviews it is clear that low awareness is only one obstacle to the use of GAP in local planning decisions. Two major underlying issues emerged that would limit the influence of the NM-GAP data in local planning. First, planning officials have little influence on planning decisions. Second, economic not environmental factors are most important in planning decisions.
The planning officials we interviewed exerted varying degrees of influence in the policy-making process.
In general, staff might make recommendations regarding planning and development to elected or appointed officials, but their primary function is to provide technical assistance to decision makers. Of the three types of organizations interviewed, planning was seen as important in only the RDOs. However, these region- wide planning organizations exerted the least influence in policy making due to their limited role. In contrast, none of the counties or tribes identified planning as a priority.
The theme that planning was not a priority emerged again when we asked about the amount of support that planning departments received from political leadership. Fourteen of the 25 officials (56%) had leadership support. However, support was most likely to be found in the RDOs where three quarters reported support. As mentioned above, these organizations are the furthest from the actual decision-making process. Among county and tribal planners, less than half felt they had the support of political leadership. Support from leadership was lowest among tribal planners, where only about a quarter said they had the support of leadership. Lack of support was most likely where there was a conflict in the goals of professional staff and traditional leaders.
For those officials who reported little support for planning, the quality or usefulness of GAP would be irrelevant.
Without support of decision makers, information and technology provided for land use planning by GAP are wasted.
The second problem facing the use of GAP as a tool for environmental planning is that environmental values are not important in the decision-making process of most local governments in New Mexico. While 16 of the 25 officials cited economic development as a priority, only nine cited the environment. As a priority, the environment ranked behind the economy, human services, client services, and infrastructure. Since almost two-thirds of the officials did not identify the environment as an organizational priority, it is difficult to see what use their agencies could have for the GAP database.
While the impact of land uses on the environment was not often a priority, it was a factor considered by most of the agencies. However, the environmental factors considered were driven by practical rather than aesthetic considerations. Issues raised included the community's need for pure drinking water, sewage systems, agricultural land for farming, logging, and wildlife management for economy-related hunting and fishing. In the majority of these cases, preservation of the environment was less the objective than was the management of natural resources for human consumption.
The major barrier to local agencies using NM-GAP data is that they are not aware of them. Other barriers include inadequate infrastructure, such as outdated or incompatible computer equipment and lack of access to the Internet, insufficient expertise or personnel to operate a GIS system, and insufficient knowledge of how to apply GAP data to local problems. While it may be possible to overcome these technical barriers, it is unlikely that the database will have much effect on local land use planning in New Mexico.
Support for planning among political leaders is weak. In many cases, decision makers have chosen not to do planning and not to regulate land use. The elected or appointed officials who make the actual land use decisions may take little notice of the recommendations made by their staffs. Our research shows that whether or not GAP data are used depends on the decisions made by the political leaders, who are more affected by interest group pressure than planning department recommendations.
Another problem is that the GAP database reflects priorities that are different from those of most decision makers. These leaders are less concerned with environmental values than they are with economic development. Further, the environmental issues of most concern to officials, such as clean water and waste disposal, are not in the GAP domain of biodiversity conservation.
While this research raises many questions, one thing is clear: simply providing planners with a new tool does not assure that it will be used. Until the information is genuinely used by those with power in the decision-making process, and until the values addressed by the GAP program are seen as at least as important as economic concerns, the NM-GAP project will have little influence on planning decisions.
Czerniak, R.J. Memorandum to Bruce Thompson, January 14, 2001.
Deitner, R.A., B.C. Thompson, and J.S. Prior-Magee. 1999. Assessing inter-project data compatibility and information distribution for conservation planning using New Mexico gap analysis data. Research Completion Report, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Las Cruces.
Feldman, M. 1995. Strategies for interpreting qualitative data. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Thompson, B.C., P.J. Crist, J.S. Prior-Magee, R.A. Deitner, D.L. Garber, and M.A. Hughes. 1996. Gap analysis of biological diversity conservation in New Mexico using geographic information systems. Research Completion Report, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Las Cruces.
Return to Table of Contents