effecting change: approaches to decision making, planning, and community development tren 3p14:...
TRANSCRIPT
Effecting Change:Approaches to decision making, planning, and
community development
Effecting Change:Approaches to decision making, planning, and
community development
TREN 3P14: Sustainable Integrated Waste Management
jurisdiction- the legal power to administer and
enforce the law
- the exercising of this power
- the region within which this power is valid or in which a person has authority
- authority - Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary
jurisdictionFor meaningful change to occur,
the appropriate jurisdictional authority must be involved in the decision making process
Example:
Waste Management in Canada operates in at least four jurisdictional levels:Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal
Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management
Canada• Canadian Environmental
Protection Act• Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act• Fisheries Act• Canadian Water Act
Ontario• Environmental Protection
Act• Dangerous Goods
Transportation Act• Environmental Assessment
Act• Env. Bill of Rights• Ontario Water Resources
Act
Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management
Regional(e.g., Niagara region)
• Landfill siting and management
• Household hazardous waste depots
• Recycling infrastructure
Local(e.g., City of St. Catharines)
• Local bylaws
• Certain waste collection contracts
• Certain municipal waste management initiatives (e.g., composting)
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
• Environmental Protection Act: Part V - Regulation 347
Waste Reduction (3 Rs) Regulations
Manifest system, licensing provisions• Dangerous Goods Transportation Act• Environmental Assessment Act• Environmental Bill of Rights• Ontario Water Resources Act
Jurisdictional integrationJurisdictional integration
For meaningful change to occur,
policies and programs at all jurisdictional levels must be
integrated and complementary
2. ‘Bottom Up’ and ‘Top Down’ Approaches
to Decision Making
2. ‘Bottom Up’ and ‘Top Down’ Approaches
to Decision Making
‘Bottom up’ approach:‘Bottom up’ approach:
• “grassroots”• Individual citizens have a role in effecting
change• May occur through formal processes of
governance (e.g., participatory democracy) or through informal processes (e.g., activities of citizen groups, activist groups, individuals, NGOs)
• Changes result from collective decision making and / or individual initiatives
‘Top Down’ approach‘Top Down’ approach
• Power is wielded by a central authority (e.g., centralized government [elected or not], monarchy, dictatorship, religious leadership)
• Role of citizen in effecting everyday change is small to nonexistent
• Changes result from decisions which are imposed upon the populace, for better or worse
‘Bottom up’ approach‘Bottom up’ approachAdvantages
• Broad range of views• Reflects citizen will• Input from many voices• Participants set own agenda• Adaptable process• Less formal process• Local expertise involved• ‘Ownership’ of process• Avoids bureaucracy• Short path to
implementation
Disadvantages• Power base may be weak• Small resources (money,
expertise)• Lack of focus• Competing agendas• Inefficient procedures• Dissention• Prone to ‘political hijacking’• No clear decision making
mechanisms• Mandate may be unclear• Jurisdictional authority may
be weak to nonexistent
Top down approachTop down approachAdvantages
• Clear jurisdictional mandates
• Capable of engaging experts
• Decision making mechanisms may be clear and efficient
• Generally well funded• May be well organized
Disadvantages• May be out of touch with
the populace• Public input is limited• May be bureaucratic• May be politically
influenced for re-election (in democracies)
• No requirement for justification of decisions
• May be arbitrary and corrupt
Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’
Typology
Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’
Typology
• Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, July 1969, pp. 216-224
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder
• Developed to help explain the relative power exercised by people as they ‘participate’ in decision making
• Rungs of ladder correspond to the level of meaningful participation
Bottom 2 rungs are CONTRIVED PARTICIPATION
(NON-PARTICIPATION):
1) Manipulation – no participation, no input
2) Therapy - to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ participants, with no input
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder
Middle 3 rungs are TOKEN POWER SHARING
3) Informing - the pretense of participation, but with no input
4) Consultation - input is allowed, but with no promise or accountability for its implementation
5) Placation – citizens can advise, but degree of implementation is discretionary
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder