Introduction
The urban planning profession is filled with frustration, despair, and confusion. The big data revolution has caused public administrators to force planners to develop models to back up their projects (Lavertu, 2016). This has put the planners in an ethical dilemma of obeying their deceptive leaders or remaining integral in their work (Stein & Stein, 2018). The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) code of ethics 2016 has set some principles and rules that the members are expected to follow (Delk & Wood, 2022; Kleit & Kemper, 2019). Although the regulations have helped address the ethical issues concerned with planning, there are still some lingering shortcomings. This paper will look at the why, what they occur, and their solutions using Wachs’s article “When planners lie with numbers” as a guide. The common ethical issues involving misuse of statistics are falsification of data, unethical leadership, and omission of key information by deceptive planners.
Introduction to Wachs’s (1989) Article
The article “When Planners Lie with Numbers” starts by acknowledging the work done by planners. It also explores how planners are affected by the actions of politicians and city planning commissions. The article clearly gives examples of how a planner may put his job at risk by placing the public interest first. The urban planners’ issues are beyond set laws and involve ethics, as the article demonstrates. Therefore, they need to decide right and wrong and make logical, reasoned, and persuasive decisions (Chang, 2021). Wachs and other authors also argue that maintaining ethics will keep planners and other professions from legal malpractice (Fong et al., 2020; Wachs, 1989). This article should be recommended to many urban developers since it would instill ethical discipline.
Wachs also states that the most effective planners do not use scientific facts to advocate for the best possible cause of action. Instead, the title belongs to those supporting an established cause of action by tailoring the statistics. As a member of the AICP ethical committee, Wachs states that he has witnessed the following ethical issues with urban planners (Wachs, 1989). First, they are usually urged by politicians to advocate for scientific facts that favor a project and remain silent on the ones that do not. Second, the planners normally overstate estimates for the projects that they prefer. For instance, they could argue that expected revenues will be $ 1,000,000 annually from a project while the reality could be $ 500,000. Thirdly, Wachs notes that when counties are asked to estimate their populations, the outcome could be six times more than the state’s estimated population (Wachs, 1989). Counties do this inaccurate analysis and prediction to gain particular benefits. In addition, he notes that many projects have an overstated cost-benefit analysis where the projected benefits exceed the actual ones (Wachs, 1989). As Wachs points out, these inaccuracies are caused by falsified data presented by dishonest city planners.
Discussion and Analysis Using Ethics in Data Use
Data and statistics, when used unethically, can pose problems that negatively affect people and society. As planning has increased in importance, judicial attention has been placed more on processes and standards, neglecting ethics (Sullivan & Bragar, 2017). The AICP has recognized the ethical data challenges that stakeholders, particularly the planners, face and set up simplified principles they should follow (Delk & Wood, 2022). The AICP code of ethics is broken down into five parts, and all, in a way, deal with the ethical use of data. First, the code states that the primary duty of planners is to serve the public interest (Wachs, 1989). Every member of the AICP is responsible to the people who give their data and are the actual consumers of the projects that the planners initiate (Delk & Wood, 2022). They are also responsible for delivering the required results to the clients and fellow employees. In giving out these results, planners need to use data ethically. They also have an ethical data responsibility to fellow professional colleagues, not disadvantaging them.
According to the AICP code of ethics, all members must maintain honesty and integrity. This is the second principle in the code and requires a person to possess professional diligence in knowing what to disclose and the information not to reveal. Members should ensure that they ethically obtain data without giving bribes or favors. In collecting the data, they should also ensure no conflict of interest in how it is collected and analyzed (Lauria & Long, 2019). Facts need not be misrepresented, and information revealed should not violate any rights of the owner. The third principle on the ethical use of data according to the code of ethics is ensuring that the data collected does not cause harm or disadvantage to fellow planners.
In ensuring that its members use data in a manner that protects the public interest, AICP has set the following guidelines about data use. First, it requires its members to present the findings they get from the data used honestly and objectively (Wachs, 1989). Honesty is advocated for in many religious texts, including the holy Bible. Romans 3:4 (The Kings James Version, 2020) says that even if everyone is a liar, as written, you should be justified in your words and prevail when judged. Thus, planners could use insights from this verse to overcome the pressure inserted on them by unethical politicians. The designers must also ensure that they meet this mandate by providing environmentally friendly data (Lăzăroiu & Harrison, 2021). Secondly, the code of ethics states that planners must avoid untrue, deceptive, and undocumented statements while conducting their analysis (Wachs, 1989). Avoiding these kinds of statements would not only inspire confidence and trust in the profession but also limit harm to the members of the public.
It has been noted that some certified planners collect more information than needed for their projects and sell the data for personal gain. The AICP code of ethics instructs its members to gather only the data it needs for their projects (Delk & Wood, 2022; Wachs,1989). Furthermore, the board requires that members sign confidentiality pledges (Lauria & Long, 2019). The planners should then adhere to the signed commitments when deciding whether to release the collected data to third parties (Saltz & Dewar, 2019). The members must also document the data sources used for inquiry (Wachs,1989). This step ensures that the reports and dashboards presented by the planners are verifiable.
Descriptive Ethical Issues Involved in Misusing Statistics, Methods, and Data
Three common unethical issues involve the use of statistical methods and data concerning urban planning. One of the main issues that many planners, certified or otherwise, deal with regularly is the falsification and fabrication of data (Cullingworth & Caves, 2014; Saltz & Dewar, 2019). Although the two terms are closely related and can be used interchangeably, they have different definitions. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials and the omission of specific results to paint another picture from what details show (Black, 2019; Buchanan, 2020). Data Fabrication is when a researcher, analyst, or planner makes up their information to prove a non-existent fact (Miyakawa, 2020). Federal policies state that fabrication and falsification acts amount to misconduct when done deliberately and cause harm to another party (Fong et al., 2020). However, the AICP role of conduct has remained silent on the issue of falsification and fabrication of statistical methods and results, further worsening the problem.
Another common issue many planners regularly grapple with is unethical leadership. Typically, urban planners work under politicians and city planners, many of whom want to approve their projects without conducting a cost-benefit analysis (Couch, 2016). Since they work under these unethical leaders, they are often asked to develop data and evidence to prove that the projects the leaders want to undertake are ethical (Black, 2019). Usually, this puts the planners in a tremendous ethical dilemma of choosing between being loyal to their leaders or putting the public interest at the forefront while conducting their research. Biblically this ethical dilemma can be solved by the planners doing what is right before the lord and ignoring their masters. Colossians 3:23 states, “whatever people do, they should do it with all their hearts, as working for the lord and not their human masters” (The Kings James Version, 2020). This verse is a guide to planners that they have to put the public interest first and do what is good without fearing their leaders.
The third ethical issue that could occur involving the misuse of statistics is the failure of the statistical methods and procedures to report some vital information. Researchers could deliver accurate data to the stakeholders, but the information is misleading while planning decisions due to critical omissions. This problem has persisted in urban planning procedures because the AICP has remained silent (Wachs, 1989). The omission of a significant record could have similar adverse outcomes to falsifying data. The analysis projects and generated reports based on omitted data are false and misleading. Researchers need to be honest in the information they present and should report any omissions.
Analytical Ethical Issues Involved in Misusing Statistics, Methods, and Data
Different but related factors cause the three problems mentioned above associated with statistical methods and procedures. One major issue with data-driven decisions is they may be based on inauthentically collected data, incomplete data sets, and non-representative data (Chang, 2021). Worse, the AICP remains silent regarding the veracity and data integrity (Wachs, 1989). This is a demonstration of a failure of the code of ethics to follow the Biblical teaching that plans fail for lack of counsel (The Kings James Version, 2020, Proverbs 15:22). As a guide, the code of ethics should be a conclusive document covering all the elements of planning.
The AICP code should be a living document that is updated regularly to deal with the challenge of a constantly changing market. However, the code changes periodically while big data is evolving at a constant fast pace (Chang, 2021). Therefore, there remain disparities between the established laws and the state of data. Currently, the AICP code does not address key areas in research and statistics (Cullingworth & Caves, 2014). Some contemporary statistical areas, such as technical analysis and reporting using software tools such as python, R, and MATLAB, are yet to be addressed (Black, 2019). The code of ethics also lacks guidelines about data management and analysis. Furthermore, despite being a reasonably old field, mathematical modeling is not well-regulated, especially in regulations dealing with assumptions.
Ethical issues involving unethical leadership have been caused by nobody mandated to audit how leaders come up with the projects they decide to implement. First, the study on corrupt leadership remains limited; therefore, various city planning committees are unaware that the leaders formulate the projects without any basis. Thus, they ask the planning team to fabricate data to aid their plans and proposals. Secondly, the unethical leader’s plans are seldom audited because the relevant bodies fear retaliation from the city planners and politicians (Chang, 2021). Some leaders are not dishonest by design, as they are constantly faced with an ethical dilemma of delivering what they promised in their campaigns or opting for the best projects based on data. The fear of losing elections makes leaders undertake projects that cost the states millions of dollars to appeal to the members of the public (Lavertu, 2016). The AICP code of ethics also presents a shortcoming when addressing leadership, particularly in urban planning. The Statement of Ethical principles does not state how leaders who force planners to give falsified information should be handled.
Insights derived from data and statistical procedures can often be misleading due to omitting relevant information. In most cases, the omission is usually due to error (Kleit & Kemper, 2019). However, some planners and researchers overlook information to deceive. They could deceive to impress their leaders and clients to show them that their projects are feasible and profitable. Deception through jumping relevant information is widespread because planners could blame errors and avoid punishments when discovered. Omissions could also be made to make models easier to understand.
Prescriptive Ethical Issues Involved in Misusing Statistics, Methods, and Data
The three common ethical problems could be solved by understanding the reasons why they occur, as discussed above, and then setting up measures to prevent them, as explained below. Enforcing the punishments for those guilty in the AICP code of ethics could reduce data fabrication cases. The perpetrators’ licenses for AICP should be revoked either temporarily or permanently. If their fabrications caused physical or financial harm to any party, then the relevant bodies should consider some legal action. AICP should also create a special committee to investigate cases of fudged data. Religious leaders should guide planners on the importance of remaining truthful. Relevant stakeholders should be reminded to avoid falsehood and speak the truth with their neighbors (The Kings James Version, 2020, Ephesians 4:25). Other teachings of love and companionship which relate to avoiding lies should also be emphasized.
The unethical leadership issue could be addressed by first addressing the politicians and city planning executive leaders and then working with the planners. The AICP code of ethics should move beyond having its guidelines restricted to its members and include the people the planners work under. Emphasis should be placed on Bible ethics since “Where there is no guidance, a people fall, but in an abundance of counsellors there is safety” (The Kings James Version, 2020, 2 Proverbs 11:14). In electing officials and leaders, members of the public need to put ethics in the forefront to avoid unethical leadership. As for the planners, they must be willing to put the public first, notwithstanding the possible consequences.
People entrusted with data and conducting statistical procedures that aid planning needs to use their professional judgment to ensure that material information is not left out in their research. The tools and statistical methods should never leave out any data that would cause falsified conclusions (Zyphur & Pierides, 2017). Planners should ensure that they do not give conclusions not warranted by the used data (Wegener et al., 2021). To this end, planning committees must allocate a sufficient budget to prevent planners from cutting off data due to inadequate resources for collection. They also need to ensure that proper educational systems are set to ensure that the profession is filled with integral professionals (Kleit & Kemper, 2019). Public administration scholars also need to add to the research on how unethical leaders should be dealt with (Lavertu, 2016). A positive data culture that encourages integrity, honesty, transparency, confidentiality, and fairness must be created.
Conclusion
The common ethical issues involving the misuse of statistics are falsification of data, unethical leadership, and omission of key information by deceptive planners. Wachs’ article shows that planners get involved in unethical issues because they are faced with an ethical dilemma, following their clients or serving the members of the public. This dilemma is addressed by the IACP code of ethics guidelines, although it is not updated regularly. Falsification in statistical reports is caused by ethical dilemmas and could be corrected by changing the authority planner’s report. This move could also solve the problem of unethical leadership in data and statistics. On the other hand, omissions could be addressed by providing adequate funding and imposing moral values on the planners using biblical teachings.
References
Black, K. (2019). Business statistics: For contemporary decision making. John Wiley & Sons.
Buchanan, T. (2020). Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on the self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0239666. Web.
Chang, V. (2021). An ethical framework for big data and smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, p. 165, 120559. Web.
Couch, C. (2016). Urban planning: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cullingworth, B. J., & Caves, R. (2014). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues, and processes (4th ed.). Routledge.
Delk, M. K. P., & Wood, S. A. (2022). The ethics of impact fee equity. In M. K. P. Delk & S. A. Wood (Eds.), Proportionate Share Impact Fees and Development Mitigation (pp. 264-276). Routledge.
Fong, E. A., Wilhite, A. W., Hickman, C., & Lee, Y. (2020). The legal consequences of research misconduct: False investigators and grant proposals. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(2), 331–339. Web.
King James Bible. (2020). King James Bible Online. Web.
Kleit, R. G., & Kemper, R. F. (2019). Planning the just city. In N. G. Leigh, S. P. French, S. Guhathakurta & B. Stiftel (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Planning Education (pp. 323-331). Routledge.
Lavertu, S. (2016). We all need help: “Big data” and the mismeasure of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 864–872.
Lauria, M., & Long, M. F. (2019). Ethical dilemmas in professional planning practice in the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(4), 393–404. Web.
Lăzăroiu, G., & Harrison, A. (2021). Internet of things sensing infrastructures and data-driven planning technologies in smart, sustainable city governance and management. Geopolitics, History & International Relations, 13(2).
Miyakawa, T. (2020). No raw data, no science: Another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain, 13(1). Web.
Saltz, J. S., & Dewar, N. (2019). Data science ethical considerations: A systematic literature review and proposed project framework. Ethics and Information Technology, 21. Web.
Stein, J., & Stein, J. M. (2018). Classic readings in urban planning. Routledge.
Sullivan, E. J., & Bragar, J. M. (2017). Recent developments in comprehensive planning law. Urban Law, 49, 521-532
Wachs, M. (1989). When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(4), 476–479.
Wegener, D. T., Fabrigar, L. R., Pek, J., & Hoisington-Shaw, K. (2021). Evaluating research in personality and social psychology: Considerations of statistical power and concerns about false findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 014616722110308. Web.
Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practising, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 1–16. Web.