FORUM
Theoretica Orientations in Environmental Planning:
An Inquiry nto Alternative Approaches
HELEN BRIASSOULIS
Southeastern College
Atriens, Greece
ABSTRACT / In the process of devising courses of action to
resolve problems arising at the society–environment inter-
face, a variety of planning approaches are followed, whose
adoption is influenced by—arnong other things---the cher-
acteristics of environmental probierns, the nature of the deci-
sion-rnaking context, and the intellectual traditions of the dis-
ciplines contributing to the study of these problems. This ar-
dele provides a systernatic ana.lysis of síx alternative
environmental planning approaches—comprehensive/ra-
banal, incremental, adapfive, contingency, advocacy, and
participatory/consensual, The retative ínfluence of the abo y e-
Environmental problems have always existed, bur
che need co study them systematically for determining
courses of action to allocate and/or distribute environ-
mental resources and. services arnong cornpeting uses
fairly and efficiently was not tett unta the late 1960s
and early 1970s, The environmental movement was at
its high point, environmental crises were making
beadlines, leading personalities were drawing the
public's attention ro the imminent threats of heedless
env ironmental abuse, and. the federal government was
embarking in ambitious programs co ger the mounring
environmental degradation u.nder control, Hence, en-
vironmental planning emerged as a funetional area
within the broader field of planning and as an activity
underr.aken by individuals and organizations dealíng
with problems arising at the society—environment in-
terface and devising courses of action ro solve th.ese
problems.
The theory and praccice of environmental planning
exhibir a variety of approaches co the formulation and
implementation of solutions to environmental
problerns. Each approach reflects a particular pintos-
ophy and mode of thinking about how diese problems
can and/or should be defined, a.natyzed, and solved.
KEY WORDS: Environmental planning; Planning theory; Planning ap-
proaches
Addrrss corresponclence to: Fleten Brias.soulis ROd011 12, Maroussi
I5122, Athens, Greece.
Enyironmental Management Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 381-392
rnentioned factors is exarnined, the occurrence of these ap-
proaches in real-world situations is noted, and their environ-
mental soundness and political realism is evaluated. Because
of the disparity between plan formulation and implementation
and between theoretical forro and empírica! reality : a syn-
thetic view of environmental planning approaches is taken
and approaches in action are identified, which characteríze
the totality of the planning procese from problem definition to
plan implernentation, as well as approaches íri the becoming,
which rnay be on the horizon of environmental planning of
tomorrow. The suggested future research directions include
case studies to verify and detall the presence of the ap-
proaches discussed, developing measures of success of a
given approach in a given decision setting, and an intertem-
parai a.narysis of environmental planning approaches.
Despite che considerable [tumbes of theoretical and
empírica' studies in che field, link has been done co
identify and analyze these environmental planning ap-
proaches. This may he pardy due co a view of plan-
ning as being principally concerned with proceclure
rather tha.n substance (Faludi 1987, Davidoff and
Reiner 1973) and pardy due to the relative infancy of
the field of envíronmental planning'. The present
study is a modest attempt at a systernaric inquiry into
alternative enviromn.ental planning approaches based
00 the theoretical and empiricat literature dealing with
environmental problems and their solucions in the
Uniced Srates. 1ts purpose is ro examine the majar
factors that inf tuence diese approaches, co discuss the
main approaches followed (explicitly or implicitly) in
environmental planning, to evaluare their environ -
mental soundness and political realism, and co oudine
emerging approaches in both theory and environ-
Ille11121 planning practice. The approaches exarnined
Viere may not differ from the planning strategies or
traditions chara.cterizing planning in general (Botan
1967, Hudson 1979), but the thrust of the presem
work is co analyze the relative va:lit/ny of each ap-
proach in different environmental problem and dect-
sion setting.
The articie starts with a discussion of the major in-
fluences upan environmental planning approaches.
Alternative approaches are presented and evaluated,
nexo followed by a synthesis of (hese approaches. The
anide doses with the main conclusions of the inquiry
and a future research agenda.
1989 Springer-Ver:ag New York inc.

382 H. Briassoulis
Factors Intluencing Environrnental
Planning Approaches
In order to underscand and explain how and why
alternative approaches emerge and are pursued in the
c.ontext of a particular environmental planning
problern, ir is necessary to examine those factors con-
ditioning the desirable approach. to that problem. The
ensuing analysis is hased on the principal proposition
that the major factors influencing environmental
planning approaches are: (I) the characteristics of en-
vironmental problems; (2) the characteristics of the
decision-making context within which sotutions are
sou.ght, devised, arrd pursued; and (3) the intellectual
traditions of the disciplines contributing to the study
of environmental prohlerns. The particular approach
actually adopted depends on the differential influencie
of diese factors in a given. environmental decision situ-
ation and, of course, on the decision maker(s)' person-
ality (a factor not considered. in Chis study). In the fol-
lowing, th.e characteristic dimensions of each factor are
discussed in order to set. the stage for the analysis of
alternative approaches.
Characteristics of Environmental Problems
Four climensions are considered here as descriptive
of the nature of environmental problems: the orígin of
the problems, th.eir spatial and tem.poral character,
and the uncertainty and risk associalecl with their solu-
don.
Enviromnental problems may originare in "aas of
God" or nature—the case of natural hazarcls—or in
acts of man—the case of man-induced hazards—or in
combinations of chose acts. "the critica' consideration
in planning for problerns of clifferent origins is che na-
cure and Level of control man has ro affect a problem's
solution.
Enviromnental problems span the whole spectnim
of spatial levels from the local to the global. Local
problems may be easier to observe, analyze, and obtain.
the necessary consensus un the desirable course of ac-
don to solve diem. In contrast, global problems, be-
sides sornetimes heing scientific puzzles because of the
difficulties to observe and analyze th.em in an unam-
biguous fashion, pose tremendous difficulties with re-
spect to obtaining the consensus needed on the proper
course of action ro attack them. Moreover, for a large
number of environmental problems there is a dis-
mrbing separacion between the locus of cheir causes
and che locus of their effects, a fact that often renders
die solution of an apparently local problem difficult .if
not unfeasible. t'erice, at a given spatial levet, the ap-
proach tu the solution of an. environmental problem is
conditioned by the amount of control over that
problem's causes and avaílable remedia' mearas.
Environniental problems may be short or long
terna, and their effects may be acute or chronic. Acute,
short-terco problems usually assurrie crisis proportions
and elidí immediate, reactive responses while chronic,
long-terno problems encourage a wait-and-see ap-
proach until a crisis breaks out.
The causes and effects of environmental problems
are very rarely known with certainty; hence, there is
alwavs a certain. anoount. of risk involved in ignoring or
tackling diese problems. Usual!), man intervenes in the
natural order of things on the assumption that na-
ture's .resilience and assimilative capacity are infinite.
Contrary to his expectations, in certain instaures chis
assumption does not huid and recoverv from man-in-
duced hazards may be, for practical purposes, impos-
sible. Alternative planning approaches differ signifi-
cantly in. the ways they h.andle the uncertainty of envi-
ronmental phenomena and the leve' of tolerable risk
society is willing tu take with respect to the solution of
environmental problems.
Natura of Deasion-Making Settina
The environmental decision-rnaking setting can be
describe(' in ternas of che nature of the decisions tú be
mide, the tradicional structure an.cl mode of public de-
cision and policy making, the distribution of power
and authority in making the related decisions, the legal
apparatus and institucional structure in support of che
decisions taken, and the generaring forres behind en-
vironmental issues.
Decisions on environmental problems are heavily
influenced by the leve) of ideological agreement on.
che nature of a problem, the scope of diese decisions
(Le., number of affected individuals, grOups, arcas,
etc.), cheir coses, and their time horizon. More often
than. not, environrnental control decisions at all spat.ial
levels are houly debated, net. necessarily because of rack.
of consensus among contending parties buz because of
cheír broad scope, high coses, distributional conse-
quences, and the long time horizons involved. Conse-
quently, most approaches to solving such problems
have been reactive and corrective rather chau preven-
tive and anticipatory.
The structure of che political system and the pre-
vailing mode of puhlic policy making unquestionably
affect che way environmental íssues are approached
and resolved. When demand for solucions to environ-
mental problems is cohesive and integrated, a.nd cleci-
síon making ís relatively centralized, holistic ap-
proaches to environmental problems are more likely to
be taken. Frequently, however, demand is fra.gmented

and decision making is decentralized, the result being
piecemeal, distributive, and/or regulatory approadies
to environmental problems. (For a more general dis-
cussion of the determinante of policy types, see Salís-
bury and Heinz 1970).
The distribution of power an.d authority in a given
decision sening decisively influences the actual ap-
proach ro solving an environmental problem. Environ-
mentally sound approaches will be ignored if they do
not serve the interests of those in power, and alterna-
nye, more "pragrmatic" approach.es will be adopte('
(somentnes being strategies of nondecision; Crenson
1971). Sitnilarl y , the approaches that uttimately survive
wili he (hose that do not exceed the limits of authority
in rnaking and enforcing solutions at a given decision-
making levet. For example, several of the ma.ndates of
the Cleart Water A.ct of 1972 could not be enforced
because the local levets did not have, arnong other
things, the requisite authority to make and enforce
water pollution regulations or plans, especiatly when
the sources of pollution were bes'ond their jurisdic-
tional boundaries.
Equally important is the influence of the legal ap-
paratus and insititutional structure in support of solu-
tions to environmental problems. Passage of the NEPA
of 1969, of the .Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 (specifically Section 701), and of the
Clean \Yacer Act of 1972 (specifically Section 208),
arnong others, have been signíficant forces in spurring
or encouraging comprehensive planning approaches
to environmental problems. For several such studies in
the field of warer-resources planning, the interested
reader is referred to Grigg (1985).
Finally, environmental problems are brought cit.
th.e public agenda by forces original:Mg in indíviduals
and/0r societal .m.ovements that influence the planning
approach :followed. Although this factor is consider-
ably more variable than the previous orles, it seems
that comprehensive or radical approaches ni environ-
mental problems are more probable when environ-
mental movemenrs bold strongly, the public pushes
for solutions and its support persisis over time, and
influential leaclers take the risk to look al the broader
picture instead of caring only for their own turf.
Intelectual Traditions of Contributing Disciplines
Environmental problems have been iooked at from
va.rious disciplinary perspectives, n'atril), ecology, eco-
nomics, engineering, latid use and regional planning,
and political science, and the approaches suggested
have the imprint of the characteristic way of thinking
of the contributing disciplines (Petak 1980, House
1976). Although it is risky to generalize about those
Environrnental Planning Approaches 383
"disciplínary ways of thinking," because of paradig-
matic shifts taking place within disciplines, certa.in
commonly held beliefs regarding each
principal way of thinking can be used ro indicate [heir
influence on environmental planning approaches.
Ecology—the discipline par excellence ín the study
of environmental problems—stresses the interconnec-
tedness of things in nature. Consequendy, the ecolog-
kat planning approach tend.s to be holistic, integrated,
and comprehensive (Entes 1984). The ecological way
of thinking has 1,rteatly influenced other disciplines en-
gaging ín environmental problem solving. The mate-
Hills balance approach advocated by Kneese (Kneese
and others 1970), Daly's (1983) steady-state economy
model, and km McHarg's (1969) "ecological deter-
ministn" are a few exarnples of this in.fluence.
Econontics' response ro environmemal externalities
is ro resurrect the market ro foster the efficient use
and oprima' allocation of resources through rnarket
.m.echanistus such as prices and pollution taxes and
charges. Traditional economíc analysis, applied to en-
vironmental problems, deals with. aggregates and mar-
ginal changes in a pardal or general equitibrium con-
text, the result being aggregate approaches eschewing
the questions of the pturalistic nature of diese
problems and the environmental SOU ndness of th.e
proposed solutions.
The e igineering approach Co environmental
problem solving is to break clown a problem into
stn.aller ones and to devise a structural saludan to each
subproblern, in the hope that che sum of Frese pardal
solutions will lead co amelioration of the original
problent (Deknatel 1983). 'This piecemeat rnechanistic
approach has been characteristic of many pass efforts
to cope with natural hazards and environmental deg-
ra.dation.
Political science usually prohes into questions of the
proper role of government in environmental affairs,
the collective choice rnechanisms and the public policy
instrumems to achieve environmental goa.ls, and the
distributional (over space and time) effects of policy
and planning decisions.
Latid use and regional planning approaches envi-
ronmental problems .mostly from a systems analydc di-
rection seeking to rationalize decisions on the use and
protecticm of environmental resources and services.
Concepts borrowed from ecology—such as carryin.g
capacity, rnaterials balance, river basin, etc.—serve as
organizing frameworks on the hasis of which solutions
to problems are elaborated (Isard 1972, Kaskell 1971.,
McHarg 1969, Kneese and others 1970).
',Che majar influences on environmental planning
approaches examine(' aboye are neither independent
384 H, Briassoulis
of one another nor do they affect ea.ch approach to
che same extent. There are interactions between all
three of them, discussion of which is beyond the scope
of che present arcicle. These imeractions will be men-
tioned, however, in the context of specific approaches
that are analyzed in the next section.
Alternative Environmental Planning Approaches
The cheory and practice of environmetual planning
in che United States exhibas a variecy of alternative
approaches followed in the search for solutions to en-
viron.mental problems, of which the foilowing six are
singled out for discussion and evaluation as being the
most frequently encountered: conprehensivelrational,
increment21, adaptive, contingency, advocacy, and
participatorykonsensual planning. Each of diese ap-
proaches is described first and then the influence of
the .relevant determinaras is e.x.a.mined, Real-world ex-
amples of che approach analyzed are given and, fi-
rtally, its environmental soundness and political re-
alism are evaluated. Table 1 summarizes che results of
the analysis and evaluation of the six approaches.
Comprehensive/Rational Planning
A logical extension of the tradicional comprehen-
sive model clominating latid use and regional plarming
until the late sixties, the comprehensíve approach was
the first w be advocated and applied in environmental
planning prernised on the spatiotemporal interconnec-
tedness of things in nature. The thrust of the ap-
proach is: (1) objective and exhaustive analysis of the
environmental and socioeconomic conditions of an
area along the Eines of a systems analytic framework
borrowing basic concepts from ecology (ecosystem, sta-
bility, resílience, carrying capacity), (2) identification
and formulation of alternative solutions to the
prohlem studied, and (3) selection of the best solution
that meets objective scientific criteria. Experts are
given a primary role assumirtg that the) , work for the
puhlic interest. The environmental planner is more of
an a.policical, technical experc, striving to engíneer a
harrnonious relationship between trature's and man's
works to avoid irreversible damage and. to secure the
long-term viabitity of ecosysterns.
The cornprehensive approach has been supriortecl
and pursuecl at a time when che enyírontnental 1-trove-
ment a.nd the influence of strong personalities were at
their peak and there was strong ideological consensus
on the need co fiucl long-term solutions to rnajor envi-
ronmental problems. Despite the incremcntal men-
tality of public decision making and the fragmentation
of power and authority among jurisdictions and orga-
nízations (Rosenbaurn 1985), the federal governmenc
passed the Nacional Environmental Protection Act of
1969 and crea red che Envíronmental Protection
Agency co set the stage for cornprehensive attacks on
the nation.'s m.ost threatening environmental
problems.
Support for the comprehensive approach has come
not only .from ecologiscs and biologists, but also from
econornists, regional planners, and political scient.ists
who believe that effective solutions to environrnental
problems require holistic analysis, systematic genera-
don of solutions, objective choice processes, and coor-
dination aniong the relevant instatitions and a.chninis-
trative b<xlíes (Isard 1972, Kneese and others 1970,
Benveniste 1.981).
The comprehensiverational approach has dorní-
naced a large number of environmental policy and
planning endeavors, of which only a limited selection
can be preseraed lleve. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and
the Clean Water Act of 1972 have been considered as
cornprehensive policy responses breaking wich che tra-
dicion of íncrernentalism in environmental policy
making (Mann 1981, 1982, Rosenba.um 1985). Most
other ares passed in the decade of 1970s and many of
the pursuara planning studies (see, for example, Grigg
1985) are mostly based on the comprehensive/rational
model. Moreover, the inefficiencies in environmental
man.a.gement resulting from pol.itical, legal, and ad-
tninistrative fragmentation and lack of coordination
have províded the impeurs for certain states co seek a
consolidaron of their environmental protection de-
partments and activities and co adopt, at least in
theory, a comprehensive approach towards multi-
media environmental problems (Haskell 1971, Rabe
1986). Finally, the comprehensive/rational approach
has been adopted in a considerable number of land
use and regional plans whose principal focus was envi-
ronmental protection--Ian Mcflarg's studíes
(McHarg 1969), New York's Environmental Plan
(Willson and others 1979), San Francisco Bay's Plan
(House 1976), Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport's
Study (McGrath 1971).
Theoretically, the cornprehensive approach meets
the environmental soundness criterion, ex.cept that it
does not seern co explícitly address che issue of uncer-
tainty and risk associated with proposed solutions and
the difficulcy, íf not impossibility, of identifying and
objectively assessing environmental costs and benefits,
Nevertheless, ít is based on an ídealized image of the
decision-making context and of the planner as being a
mere technician in the process. 'The degree of central-
izacion of power and authority necessary co make such

Environrnental Planning Approaches 385

Jable 1. Environmental planning approaches and their determinants.

Planning approaches.

Cora prehensive tecrernensal Adaptive Contingency Advocacy Participatory
Determinaras Dimensions Va/J.1es

L Characteristics of 1.1 Origin Human x

enviromnentai Matare x
problems 1.2 Sparizi Local x
dirnension Regional x
Global
1.3 Temporal Short mrm
dimension Long tern/ x
1.4 Risk! .Low
umertainty fligh
Characteristics of 2.1 Nature of Bread scope, high
1:he decasion- decisions coses, long time
making context, horizon,
disagTeement
Narrow scope, low
coots, short lime
horizon,
agreentent
2.2 Mode/ Integrated X
structure of denla/id,
public decision centralized
making decidan making
Fragmentad x x x
demand,
deeentralized
decision inaking
2.3 Distribution tsr Coricentrated
power Fragniericed X
2.4 Legal/ Exista
institucional Does riot exist
struclOU',
2,5 Gene/atea Strong X
(orces Weak X ? X

Intellectual 3.1 Ecology
traditions of 3.2 Economies x.

contributing 3,3 Engineering
X 5.
discipline 3.4 Latid use/ X
regional
planning
3,5 Political
science
Evaluation of approaches'
5.
Environmental somadness Ves
No

.Political realistas Ves X
No

questa:in mark indicares ruar it u nor possibre ro answer the questinn with cerntinty. Blartit spanes indicare that the correspondiriky henar (or a speritic dimension oía factor} te (sor relevara or
dominara for the approach andied,
hThe evaluation reters ro the approaches %fi/1 are parsued tít practice. 15 is nrot a normative aval...ration.

an approach implementable in real-world settings is Incrementa! Planning

absent and rarely ctesirable in democratic societies
(House 1976). Interjurisdictional cooperation is diffi- Going to the other extreme, the incrementa' ap-
culi Lo achieve because of lack of appropriate institu- proach seems to rule the practice of environmental
cional tnechanisms (Mutilar and Rogers (982), and the planning. Environmental problems are given attention
pressure politics exercised by the plethora of interest only when they reach crisis proportions, in a dis-
groups afTected by environmental control decisions jointed, .uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion. Planning
make this approach unfeasible salce jt does not in- degenerates finto crisis management with whatever
dude citizen participation in the planning process. means are available al the moment. Even new
nally, in its overconcern with erivironmentaal protec- problems are attacked through outmoded rneans be-
non, this approach has historically ignored the socio- cause past practice is the best guille for most decision
economic cost implications of planning' proposals, the tnakers (Rosenbaum 1985).
result being the ultitnate abandonment of the "clean The incrementa' approach has been viewed as an
environment" drearn for a less dran clean reality. inevitable consequence of the world of potajes. More
386 H. Briassoulis
often than non ideological consensus on environ-
mental problems is difficult to achieve. Fragrnentation
and imbal.ances of power and authority among juris-
dictions and interese groups, and the irtcremental, dís-
triburive mode of public policy niaking do not allow
comprehensive solutions to environmental problems
tú materialize and be effective ini addition, the prac-
tice of local land use planning. with its emphasis on
local autonorny and the application of engineering,
structural solutions to reduced, bounded problems,
has set .the precedent for similar treatment of environ-
mental problems ("the solution to pollution is dilution"
arriende), precludiug more comprehensive, anticipa-
tory, and cooperative approaches, and exacerbating
interjurisdictional conflicts. Charles Lindblom (1973)
aptly juseified incrementalism in environmental plan-
ning when he wrote:
Most of w believe that because we becante irrvolved in our environ-
mentsd difficulties piecerneal, we shall have to get out cornprehensi-
vety.. Clearly the argument writains a fallacv. We did fall tinto our
envitonmental problenis through piecerneal gradrialism. That still
leaves apeo the possibility that the saíne route is the only mute out of
the problern Believi.ng that everything is interconnected, we fati
inca the logical fallacy of believing the only way to improve those in-
terconnections is ro deal with diem all a.t once .... But because every-
thing o connected, it is heyond our capacity ro rnaniputate variables
comprehensively. Because everything is interconnected, the whole of
uhre envirortmennd problem is beyond our capacity co control in orne
unified policy. We have co fin(' critical points of interventions...."
Most environmental control efforts are incrementa(
ini nature. Environmental crises, either of a natural or
human origin, are u.sually handled individuall y, iso-
lated from th.eir broader contc:xt, and within the range
of possibility of ava.ilable rneans. On the onher hand,
routine management. of natural and man-induced
problems is based on en.vironmental regulation—the
predotninant tool applied towards correction of social
errors (Benveniste 1981). Regulatory activa:y is frag-
mented between environmental inedia—air, water,
land, and biota—with separate programs and organi-
zations dealing with each medium. This fragmentation
has occurred incrementally as experience with envi-
ronmental problems accumulated and govermnents
reorganized and expanded their involvement in envi.-
ronmenta/ management (Rabe 1986).
Clearly, the incremental approach does non meen
che environmental soundness criterion because of its
limited vision of unbounded environmental problems
(Ederrund.s 1981). A mere enumeration of pollution
episodes and natural disasters provides evidence of its
ineffectiveness. On policical ground.s, the approach
may appear pragrnatic, but it leaves many questions
unanswered. sud: as: who decides th.e level of accepr-
able risk, especially for life-threatening environmental
problems (e.g., nuclear accidents, toxic waste disposal);
how do we rreat new problems for which no prior ex-
perience exists and for which the strat.egy of ignorance
is not politically expedietu; how do we know that the
step taken wili lead us to where we want ID go; and
what is the role of citizen participation in. environ-
mental decision making? Ciearly, the incremental ap-
proach favors the furtherance of the status quo-
svhatever this may happen ro be—and from an envi-
ronmental viewpoint, it gambles with nature.
Adaptive Planning
Representing a mentality of prepared responsive-
ness (Holling 1978), che adaptive approach con.sists of
a series of successive and continuous adaptations of
human activities to variable, over space and time, envi-
ronmental and socioeconomic conditions. It is antici-
patory in that it develops solutions co problerns on the
basis of predictable future events. It stresses the need
for flexibility at each step of che planning process to
allow for changes in direction necessitated by changes
in gozas, revised future predictions, and availability of
new evidence. Environmenta.1 planning hecomes a
continuous process of adaptive iearning (Daneke
1983) starting with plan (or policy) formulation, pro-
ceeding to implementation, and progressing with plan
evolution int() the future. Contintious interactions be-
tween sciendsts and planners as well as interested
parties are an indispensable mechanísert through
which aclaptation is accomplished.
As an approach to environmental probletns, cite
adaptive approach has a long history. Man has re-
sponded co relost natural hazards through adaptation
(McIlarg, 1969), following raiher [han leading natural
and h.timan evolution. In its contemporary form, the
adaptive approach, grounded on systems anal ysis, rec-
ognizes the dynamic character of ecosystems, the un-
cerniinty associated with descríbing th.em and pre-
dicting the environmental consequences of human a.c-
tivities, and the existence of both sensitive and robust
elements in ecosystems that should be identified prop-
erly so that human uses of environmental resources
can be accommodated withoun however, jeopardizing
che complexity, srability, and resilience of ecosystems
(Hollig 1978).
Adaptive environmental planning has been advo-
cated not only by ecologists but also by political scien-
tists and latid use planners. The former view it as an
approach helping society to learn from pass mistakes,
developing the ability to enabrace error, and hence,
tdstering social responsibility in contrast to che pacer-
nalism of traditional regulation which erodes this re-

sponsibility (Daneke 1983). [and use planners find ad-
aptation necessary when broad, federal Level policies
have to he apphed at and respond to the needs of the
local levet. Implementation of the Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act of 1972 (CZMA) provides an instructive
example of adaptation and experimental:ion (Kitsos
1985). The need to balance development and environ-
mental interests in coastal arcas, as spelled out in the
CZMA, has led, on the one hand, lo state programs
tailored to the particular coastal issues of each state
(Matuszeski 1985) and, on the other hand, to th.e
velopment of "special arta management planning"
and oth.er ant.icipatory planning approaches which at-
tempt to anticípate and avoid conflicts before plan en-
actment (Healy and Zinn 1.985).
Given the limitations of science to provide clear and
un.ambig UOUS answers to environmental problems, a
careful adaptation to a predictable future most prob-
ably ensures environmetually sound problem solu-
tions. although the question. remains of what will be
che overall effect of parcial adaptations on the achieve-
ment of desirable end states. Also, adaptation does not
guarantee efficient use of resources according ro strict
econorníc criteria (Daneke 1983). Despite the theoret-
ical appeal of ad.aptíve planning in a Huid natural and
social world, at the operacional leve), the political re-
alism of chis approach can be questioned on two
fronts: first, how much is modem society willíng to
make sacrificas in the present to secure the future and,
secon.d, how well is society prepared for the kind of
adaptive learning and experimentation ímplied by this
approach. If both. questions are answered in the affir-
mative, the vision of a "forgiving society" [a term usecl
by C. S. Rolling and quoted in Daneke (1983)] may he
at our doorstep and adaptive planning wíIl be assured
political via.bility.
Contingency Planning
Th.e contingency approach provides anoth.er way of
coping with un.certain environmental problems, either
of natural or huirían origin, by focusing on those
aspects of the problems whose unexpected occurrence
may have severe adverse consequences. Planning ís
needecl co produce alternative courses of action co
followed in the event of these contingencies for the
purpose of deflecting them or avoiding their worst
consequences. This is an approach similar to engi-
neers' designing structures with a high coefficient of
safety (Botan 1967) and co corporate contingency
planning for unexpetted disasters (O'Connor 1978).
The widest application of this approach is found in
planning for arcas prone to natural hazards (Perry
Environmental Planning Approaches 387
1979, Plan 1982, Kartez 1984), followed by emergency
planning for man-induced disasters (e.g., technological
accidents). The requirement for ínclusion of miriga-
non plans in envíronmental impact scatements or the
provision of mitigation measures in connection with
severa' major activities reflects a contingency planning-
mentality directed towards avoiding excessive sacrifices
in the present but also avoiding or minimizing the fu-
cure costs of present decisions.
When advanced as a protective strategy against cer-
tain natural hazards, the contingency approach tnay be
a sensible planning response. For man-induced
hazards, however, the approach implies a certain
amount of environmental risk, sílice it does not safe-
guard agaínst the possibility of wrong estimares of con.-
tin.gent events, and the value of their consequences,
and of economic risk, since preparation of contingency
plans requires resources that have co be diverted from
their present uses. The questron in this case is whether
the postdisaster costs are actually less than the costs of
careful predisaster planing. Moreover, it makes no
claini that avoid.ance of probable catastrophes will ini-
prove human welfare or that desirable environmental
goals will be met. As a planning strategy for man-
caused disasters, it is simply a dangerous last resort
(Plan 1984). From the viewpoint of political realism,
the approach may be appealing lo distributive and de-
centralize.d systems as it implies distribution of benefits
to be clerived in excepcional future circumstances at
mínimum or no presem cost and because of its synt-
bolic overtones that something is being done for the
public ínterest. But it. entails political risk as well when
contingencies transpire and planning is proven inef-
fective or needless, thus causing public diswntent and
revealing the lack of .preventíve, anticipawry planning.
Advocacy Planning
Bred by the strong icleological character of most en-
vironmental prohlems, che advocacy approach ac-
knowledges the impossibility of planning co serve two
masiers at tire same time, i.e., the prodevelopment and
proenvironmental interests. Solutions proposed for-
environmental problems distinctively comply with the
philosophy and interests of those served. Theories and
methods ernployed are congruent with client values
and. goals, and data are manipulated to emphasize
those aspects of a problem that support the clients'
claims.
The advocacy approach is manifested in a variety of
circumscances invoiving strongly debated environ-
mental problems that are broad in scope and whose
solutions imply long-term commitment of resources.
Acid rain control ís a case in point. The precontrol
388 H. Briassoulis
groups advance comprehensive solutions ba.sed on. the
theory that the Midwestern utilities are the culprits
who have to pay for the control, and they present evi-
dence in support of this theory while disregarding the
considerable uncertainty of its scientific basis. The an-
ticontrol groups push for incremental solutions—in
the farm of modification of the Clean Air Act, techno-
logical solutions. and continuad research—exploiting
scientific uncertainty and trying to buy time.
The advocacy approach may be also encouraged
when governments wish to broaden the social oasis of
environmental decisions. For example, in the case of
hazardous waste siting in Massachussetts, decisions are
arrived at through a process involvíng severa( interest
groups proposing solutions favoring their particular
interests (Anderson and Greenberg 1082).
A careful examination of most environmental con-
troversies reveas che dominating presence of th.e ad-
vocacy approach, but the impasse characterizíng the
resolution of many environmental problems points to
its inherent weaknesses. Allowing advocates of usually
divergent solutions to compete for influence on envi-
ronmental decision making in a decentralized system,
characterized by fragmentation of power and au-
thority, results in che survival of the fittest. Whether
the outcome is an environme ►tally beneficial orce de-
pends on who survives the struggle. The mos( fre-
quent outcome, however, is an impasse, which is
fraught with environmental risk. Advocacy planning
denies the fact. that if ultimately a politically acceptable
and enforceable decision is to be made, it has to ac-
commodate the interests of all parties affected. Espe-
cially wh.en environmental groups remain strong on
th.eir positio ►s, they may ultirnately work against envi-
ronmental protection, hence, negating the cause of
their actions. All this pues in question the political re-
alism of advocacy in environmental planning.
Participatory/Consensual Planning
The ideas of participatory democracy and nonad-
versarial dispute resolution have found fertile ground
in environmental prohlern solving recendy. Solurions
to environmental problems are sought in common by
affected groups and are given the necessary legíti-
tnacy, which guarantees their enforcement, at least in
theory. The participatorykonsensual approach is
mainly, bttt .not exclusively, represented by the
growing emphasis on and a.pplication of enyiron-
mental mediation a.nd negociador, to the resolution of
environmental conflicts. It is premised on a pluraliscic
view of reality, voluntary participation of interested
parties, and the possibility of win–win solutions in en-
vironmental controversies. Parties present their solu-
tions to problems, based on whatever evidence and
methods they consider appropriate, but efforts are
channeled to finding a common ground and building
a consensus for resolving differences of opinion and
dístributin.g costs and benefits evenly and equitahly
among p2trticipants.
Mediation and negotiation have been tried in devel-
°palet► conflicts in many instantes, and tb.& exten-
sion to environmental problems is a natural continua-
don of this trend. In addition, the EPA has started to
experiment with the idea of regulatory negotiation
purporting to employ it in the future as an environ-
mental control instrument (Schneider and Tohn
1985). Severa' states have already passed legislation re-
quiríng mediation of environmental conflicts instead
of their adjudicatory resolution (Amy 1987, Susskind
and Cruikshank 1987).
Environmental negotiation and mediation have
worked in a rather satisfactory man ►er with small-
scale, local, man-induced problems (Bingham 1986,
Mernitz 1980, Bacow and Wheeler 1984) because their
scope was limitad, most parties agreed on the need for
a solution, and the costs were rather modest.
decentralization affected favorable the success of me-
diation in diese cases, and the solutions agreed upan
were supported legislatively and institutionally. For
large-scale problems, however, the approach comes
under the narre of "policy dialogues" (Bingham 1986),
a temas which stifficiendy refleccs the limited a.pplica-
bility of the mediationlnegotiation idea to broad-scope
problems involving significant scientific evidence,
which reinforces ideological disagreernent. Moreover,
environmental mediation is as yet untested (or difficult
te test) with large-scale problems, and the social and
political climate is U101 ripe for such experimenution.
It is difficult to judge che environmental soundness
of solutions arrived at through mediation an.d negotia-
tion efforts given the unpredictability of the resulting
trade-offs between en yíronmental quality and other
societal goals. Certainly, the solutions are of the "dis-
placed ideal" type (Zel.eny 1982) because of the inevi-
table concessious on the part of the proenvironmental
forces. The worst environmental consequ.ences n'ay be
deflected tem.porarily, but there is no assurance that a
desired state of the environment will ultimately mate-
rialize.. As co the political realism of the participatory/
consensual approach, several questions arise: how vi-
able is che approach when values and not interests
compete; how imparcial is che approach when inter-
ested parties do not participare voluncarily; how fai.r is
a mediated solution in a world of unequal power and
resources distribution among participants (Amy
1987)? These are real and critica[ questions, which, if

answered in the negative, will weaken the appeal of an
approach that promises to reduce rehance on adver-
sarial approaches lo the solution of environmental
problems.
Synthesis
The six environmental planning approaches dis-
cussed previously represent rather "pure" types.
Given, however, the disparity that usually exists be-
tween theoretical propositions ami practica' applica-
tions, as well. as laetween plan formulation and plan
implementaban, the actual approaches pursued and
which ultimately shape the environment of luaman life
and experienc,e, are blends of the abo ye cypes. During
the planning process, pure approaches mesh into an
overall approach to cope with environmental
problems. Hence„ the creed is to take a synthetic view
of en.vironmentat planning approaches in order
identify approaches in action—mixer of complemert-
tary pure types—which characterize the totality of en-
vironmental planning frote p roble ni iden ti rica tio ut and
definition to plan implementar:ion and evolution, and
approaches in the becorning, which may be on th.e ho-
rizon of environmental planning of th.e future.
The comprehensiveirational approach has run into
many obstarles ort its way towards finding racional so-
lutions to environmental problems. Comprehensive
environmental plans usually have hit bottoin when the
time carne for itnplementation and have undergone
transformatíons. This is why the comprehensíve ap-
proach ís frequently found in combination with other
approaches. North Carolina's coastal plan, for ex-
ample, is described as che result of a mix of a compre-
hensive, adaptive, and contingency planning which
emerged in response to the need to protect the state's
coastal zone and to allow for developrnent of ics re-
sources (Owens 1985). New jersey's coastal manage-
ment plan combines elements of the comprehensive,
adaptive, and participatory approaches (Kinsey 1985).
San Diego's environmental plan, although compre-
hensive in conception and formulation, is imple-
mented through gradual adaptations to local condi-
tions and incremental steps, consistent, however, with
the requirements of the comprehensive plan (Shirvani
and Stepner 1986).
The passage of the NEPA of 1969, with its requíre-
ment for environmental impact assessmeurs (EIAs) of
majar projects affectin.g che environment, represeuts
an unusual combination of compreitensiven.ess and in-
crementalism in that, clespite the holistic outlook of the
act, EIAs are undertaken on a case-by-case, uncoor-
dinatecl, incremental fa.shion (Twiss 1975). En fact, this
Environrnental Planning Approaches 389
incrementalism may have fostered the emergence of
antagonistic approaches to corred its inefficiencies-
such as tire adaptive impact assessment process
(Rolling 1978)—or rnay have led to polarizing advo-
cacy approaches characteristic of environmentidevel-
opment, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and other
similar disputes.
Incrementalism alone has not provee to be a satis-
factor), approach to environmental problems, but its
pervasíve influence in real-world decision making
rnakes it an inseparable part of any other alternative
approach pursued.. Besides the cases mentioned be-
fore, incrementalism has combinecl with participatory
planning, as eviclenced in rnediated environmental
conflicts irr .which the solutions agreed opon by the
participants represent rather sntall deviations from the
status quo (Amy 1987, Bingham 1986, Bacow and
Wheeler 1984).
The advocacy approach usu.ally leads to polarities in
the decision environment, with con.tending parties
adopting different aproaches to the solution of a de-
bated problem. Hence, the advocacy approach most
frequently combines with other approaches as, for ex-
ample, in acid deposition control rnentioned tare-
viously.
These few exam pies of approaches in action attest,
on th.e ocie batid, to the ineffectiveness of pure ap-
proaches and. on the other, co a trend towards hybrid
approaches to environmental planning and decision
making. Recendy, a satisfying mentality seems to
govern environmental planning approaches and ro be
tire core feature of approaches in the beconting. As a
result of a growing awareness among environmental
planners and decision makers of the intractability,
controversiality, and uncertainty of environmental
problems, hybrids of participatory planning are
adoptecl, reflecting an expanded view of environ-
mental planning as being not only a technical exercise
of vieldin.g optimal solutions but also a means to
broaden 1:he social basis of environmental decision
making, reconcile opposing interests, manage uncer-
tainty, educate the pubtic, and produce implemen cable
solutions. Whether they combine with. comprehensive
approaches, accompany incrementalism, or comple-
rnent adapcive approaches, the gist of these hybrid ap-
proaches seems to be that without participation, no
step in. the planning process can be executed success-
fully and effectively. Involvement of affected parties
starts with early decisions on defining and bounding
problems, choosing methods of analysis, discu.ssing al-
ternatives, and resolving differences of opinion during
the various planning stages.
Evidence of tire growing popularity of hybrid partí-

390 H. Briassoulis
cipatory planning approaches comes from many direc-
tions. Many universities have specialized prograrns on
dispute resolution—exclusivelv devoted to or in-
cluding environmental issues—within or in conjunc-
tion with planning curricula (Bingham 1986). Many
local and regional level development and en.viron-
mental planning disputes have been resolved through
mediationMegotiation processes, and the agreements
reached ha.ve been incorporated ín comprehensive
plan, regulations, impletnentation prograrns, etc.
(Bingham 1986, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Sev-
eral states have passecl laws encouraging or requiring
the use of medíation and/or negotiation ín resolving
disputes over si.ti.ng of facilities, clevelopment of coa.stal
and other environmentall y sensitive ateas, etc.
(Bingham 1.986, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). A
few important policy dialogues have demonstrated the
relative meríts of getting contending parties together
in making important policy decisions on distributional
issues. Administrative agencies—such as EPA and
OSHA—ha.ve started experimenting with and ap-
plying che idea of regulatory negotiation in prornui-
gating tules and regulations en several, sometímes
highly controversial, environmental issues (Bingham
1986, Susskind and Cruiksh.ank 1.987), Finally, certain
first stops towards che institutionalization of mediation
and negotiation processes ha.ve peen taken at the state
and federal levels (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). It
rernains for time to show whether these hybrid partici-
patory/consensual approaches are more responsive,
effective, and politically viable approaches to resolving
environmental problems.
Conclusions
Envíronm e ntal problems are tnetaproblems
(Cartwright 1973), that is co say, problems described
by a large number of variables, many oí which are dif-
fiesta ce operationalize unambiguously. This explains
why the comprehensiveírational approach to planning
for (hese problems did not pass che tests of suitahilíry
and political realism; neither did other "pure" ap-
proaches, although each of them was sensitive ro and
addressed different aspects of the problems studied.
The approaches in action discussed represent chosen
responses to the perceived extent and intensíty of mut-
tifaceted environmental planning problems. In each
case, elements of pure approaches combined to pro-
duce a planning approach that responded co and re-
flected the cension between the characteristics of the
environmental problem considered and che capacity of
the decision system to han.dle it. The present inquiry
did :not intend and could not go into the details of
these approaches. Its purpose was ro provide the
fratnework and groundwork for further systematic ex-
plorations into the ways environmental problems are
approached and resolved, ís possible, however, to
sketch a future research agenda that i.s neecled to sup-
plensent tisis study and to address additional research
questions.
First, although the present study rnentionect cases
of "pure" approaches and d'eh- combinations, it (lid
not tackle the specifics of those cases. Case studies of
severa! environmental problems and their solutions
are needed in arder to examine, en the ene hand, how
the relative weight of che characteristics of the
problem, the decision setting, and the contributing
disciplines shaped the approach chosen to resabie the
problem., and on the other, to ascertain the existence
of the approaches described here.
Para.l.lei to case studies, or as a para of them, inca-
sures of success of selected planning approaches in
given problem situations need to he elaborated to an-
swer che question of how well and how effectively the
characteristics of approaches in action match che de-
manda of the planning context.
Anocher research &cedan is towards the examina-
non of cite :influence of other factors on environ-
mental planning approaches, such as the personality
factor mention.ed in the beginning and the role of pro-
fessional ethics, technology, and technological change
among others.
Finaily, time has to be introduced explícitly into the
analysis of environmental planning approaches to ac-
coma more satisfactorily for the dynamic of che plan-
ning process. An intertemporal analysis can follow two
directions. First, at che microlevel. of particular case
studies, changes in the approach followed from
problem definítion to implementaban as well as mid-
stream changes need to be observed, documented, and
evaluated to identify the strong and weak points of
each approach at each nage of the planning process.
Second, at a tnacrolevel, analysis of the evolution of
environmental planning approaches since the 1960s
will reveal how planning responses to environmental
problems have changed over time with changes in
perception and knowledge of environmental phe-
nomena and changes in the sociac‘conomic and polit-
ical climate.
Despite the considerable progress made in the field
of environmental planning sílice its appearance in the
1960s in terms of philosophical, economic, technical,
scientific, and political analysis of environmental
problems, development of methods and techniques,
elahoration of policies, and practical applications, the
body of environmental pl.anning theory is still meager.

Contrihutions from hoth theoreticians and practi-
tioners are necessary to bring the field as a whole to
maturity.
Literature Cited
Amy, D. J. 1987. The politics of environmental mecliation.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Anderson, R. F., and M. R. Greenberg. 1982. Hazardous
waste facility siting: A role for planners. /arma/ of the Amer-
ican Planning. Association 48(2).204-218.
Bacow, L. S., and M, Wbeeler. 1984. En.vironmental dispute
resolution. Plenum Press, New York.
Benvertiste, G. 1981. Regulation and planning: The case of
environmental politics. Boyd and Fraser, San Francisco,
California.
Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environrnental disputes. The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Botan, R. S. 1967. Ernerging views of planning. Journal of the
American Intitule of Planners 33(4):233-245.
Carcwright, T. J. 1973. Problems, solutions, and strategies: A
contribution to the theory and practice of planning. jounuti
of the American Institute of Marinen 39(3).179-187.
Crenson, M. 1971. The unpolitics of air pollution. John
Hopkins Press, Balcintore, Maryland.
Daly, H. E. 1983. The steady sta.te econorny. Pages 237-252
in T. O'Riordan and R. K. Turner (eds.), An annotated
reader in environmental planning and management. Per-
pulen Press, Oxford.
Daneke, O. A.. 1983. An ada.ptive-learning approach to envi-
ronmental regulation. Policy Studies Review 3(1):7-12.
Davidoff, P., and T. A. Reiner. 1973. A choice theory of
planning. Pages 11-39 in A. Faludí (ed.), A reader in
planning theory. Pergartion Press, Oxford.
Deknatel, C. Y. 1983. Choices of orientation in teaching envi-
ronmental pla.nning. Journal of Planning Education and Re-
search 3(2):118 -125.
Eagles, P. F. J. 1984. The planning and management of envi-
tonmentally sensitive arcas. Longman, London,
Ednuinds, S. W. 1981. Environmental pcilicy: Bounded ratio-
riality applied ro unbounded ecological prohleins.
D. E. Mann (ed.), Environmental policy formation. Lex-
ington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Faludi, A, 1987. A decísion-centered view of environmental
planning. Pergarnon Press, Oxford.
Gligg, N. S. 1985. Water resources planning. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Haskell, E. 1971. New directions in state environmental plan-
ning-. Journal of the Arnoican Intitule of Planners 37(4):253-
258..
Healy, R. G., and. Zinn, J. A. 1985. Environment and devel-
opment conflicts in coastal zone management. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 51(3).299-311.
Hotling, C. S. (ecl.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assess-
mera and management. John Wiley, New York.
House, P. W. 1976. The quest for complereness. Lexington
Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Environmental Planning Approaches 391
Hudsort, B. M. 1970. Cornparison of current planning theo-
ries: counierparts and contradictions. Journal of the Amer.
kan Intitule of Planners 45(4):387-398.
lsard, W. 1972. Ecologic-econornic analysis for regional de-
velopment. The Free Press, New York.
Kartez, J. D. 1984. Crisis response planning: Toward a con-
tin.gent analysis. Journal of the American Institute of Planners
50(1):9-21.
Kinsey, D. N. 1985. lessons from the New Jersey coastal
management program. Journal of the American Instituir; of
Platine1u 51(3):330-336.
Kicsos, T. R. 1985. Coastal management pi->litics: A view from
Capitol Hill. Journal of the American Institute of Planners
51(3).275-287.
Kneese, A. V,, R. U. Ayres, and R. C. D'.Arge. 1970. Eco-
nomice and the environment. John Hopkins Press, Balti-
more, Maryland.
Lindblom, C. E. 1973. Incrementalism and environmenta-
lism. In Nacional conference on tnanaging the environ-
ment. Final Report. Washington, DC: Washington Envi-
ron.mental Research Cerner, US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Mann, D. E. 1981. Introduction. Pages 1-27 in D. E. Mann
(ed.), Environmental policy forrnation. Lexington Books,
Lexington, Massachusetts.
Mann, D. E. 1982. Introduction.. Pages 1-20 in D. E. Mann
(ed.), Environmental policy implernentation. Lexington
Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.
Matuszeski, W. 1985. Managing the federal coastal program:
The planning yeaa, Journal of the American Planning Associ-
ation 51(3):266-274.
McGrath, D. C., Jr. 1971. Multidisciplinary environmental
analysis: Jamaica Bar and Kennedy Airport. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 37(4).243-252.
McHarg, 1. 1969. Design with nat.ure. The Natural History
Press, Carden Cíty, New York.
Mernitz, S. 1980. Mediation of environmental disputes: A
sourcebook. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Malear, J. J., and D. L. Rogers. 1982. Intetorganizational co-
ordination in en vironrnental management: process,
strategy, and objective..Pages 95 - 108 in D. E. Marín (ed.),
Environtimental policy tinplementation. Lexington Books,
Lexington, Massachusetts.
O'Connor, E. 1978. Planning under uncertainty. The Con-
ference Board, Inc., New. York.
Owens, W. 1985. Coastal management in Nonti Carolina:
Building a regional consensus.laumuit of the American Plan-
ning Associatimi 51(3).322-329.
Perry, R. W. 1979. incentíves for evacuatiort in natural dis-
aster. »urna/ of the American Planning Association 48(4):440-
447.
Peta.k, W. J. 1980. Environtnental planning and manage-
ment.: The need for an incegrative perspective. Environn-
mental Management 4(4):287-295.
Pla.tt, R. H. 1982. The Jackson Flood of 1979: A public policy
disaster. Journal of the American Planning Association
48(2).219-231.
392 H. E3riassoulis
Platt. R. H. 1984. The planner and nuclear crisis relocation,
journal of th.e American Planning Association 50(2):259-260.
Rabe, 13, G. 1986. Fragmentation and integration in state en-
vironmental management. The Conservation Fou.ndation,
Washington, DC.
Rosenbaum, W. A. 1985. Environmental f.)olitics and policy.
Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, DC.
Salisbury, R., and J. Heinz. 1970. A theory of policy analysis
and some prelirninarv applicatiort. Pages 39-50 in 1. Shar-
kansky (ed.), Policy analysis in politit2.1 science, Markham
Publishing Company, Chicago.
Schneider, R., and E. Tohn. 1985. Success in negotiating en-
virontnental regulations. .Environmetual .Impact Assessment
Rec'iew 5(1):67- 78.
Shirvani., H., and Stepner, M. 1986. San Diewa's environ-
mental planning process: Ten years tater. journal of the
Anii.vican Planning Association 52(2):212-219.
Susskind, L, and J. Cruikshank. 1987. 13rea.king che impasse.
Basic Books, Ne. w York,
Twiss, R. H. 1975. Nine approaches te) environmental plan-
ning. Pages 235-272 in R. W. Burchell and D. Listokin
(eds..), Future Luid use. Center for Urbart Policy Research,
Rutgers—The State University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey.
Willson, J. S., P, Tabas, and M. Henneman. 1970. Compre-
hensive planning and the environment: A manual for
planners. Abt Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Zeleny. M. 1982. Multiple criceria decision-making. McGraw- ti
Hin Book Company, New York.