Cuidado en la Educación Ambiental

As communities of interest grow more numerous and complex, a higher level of community involvement is both desired (Department of Internal Affairs, 2006) and desirable (Cheyne, 1997; Comrie, 1998; Drydyk, 2005; Lowndes & Sullivan, 2004). However, a community’s desire for involvement is not necessarily the same thing as what council politicians and systems allow, or are capable of. Forgie et al. (1999, p. 6) comment:

The question of who should be entitled to make decisions underlies the contested nature of democracy. How can the many voices of the public be melded into a system of government that is stable, efficient and fair? These questions have not been resolved, despite the lengthy evolution of democracy.

Forgie’s comment highlights the weaknesses of participative democracy and representative democracy, and the struggles of a hybrid system of both approaches. Yet this is what the LGA 2002 requires. The purpose of local government is, therefore, a difficult balance of participative and representative approaches, and Birch (2002) observes that the rising expectation of participation that results from this combination of democratic approaches creates tension that is natural, and significant.

Contrasting with a representative approach, participative democracy seeks to include citizens more closely in decision-making. Participative democracy provides citizens with a chance to influence decisions and in doing so the act of participation also empowers democracy and encourages trust to build. Participation in local government decision-making is primarily designed to facilitate responsiveness to community needs, but it also encourages community cohesion (reflecting issues of common interest) and improves the perceptions of citizens who are frustrated with bureaucracy (Forgie et al., 1999; Lowndes, 2004; Ministry of Social Development, 2008). Cheyne (1997) and Drydyk (2005) say by involving citizens, the participative approach provides a mechanism to find balance between a citizen’s individual rights and the equivalent rights of the community.

However, as argued by many writers including Lowndes et al. (2006), Cheyne (2002), Pratchett (2004) and Sullivan (2004), participative democracy can only be effective if the processes used to facilitate involvement achieve representative feedback. The participation must connect and speak for all affected or interested communities.

In general, the discussion on representative democracy identified many of the limitations that contributed to the rise of participative democracy. Participative democracy also has

acknowledged weaknesses, particularly in the numerous barriers that limit participation. But early writers were more concerned with the value of the ordinary citizen’s contribution on the basis of their perceived low skill levels and capability (Crozier, Huntington, & Watanuki, 1975; Sharpe, 1970). While those ideas find little favour in contemporary writing, Lowndes et al. (2006) do identify civic skills as one of the three main areas influencing participation. They list lack of resources (e.g. education, civic skills, and time), regulations (the

accessibility of consultation processes) and council/community relationships as the primary blocks to citizen involvement.

Forgie (2001) further suggests that there are levels of competency associated with civic skills, and that people may not participate because they doubt their expertise to make a valuable or valued contribution, and question that their comments will have an influence. Forgie also observed that many citizens may lack the incentive to participate because they are satisfied with council performance, or they are not interested in council activities. Burns, Hambleton and Hoggett (1994) contend that awareness and interest levels are also often the result of councils making inadequate information available, and therefore failing to encourage participation.

Drydyk (2005) suggests that expectations also impact on participation, stating that the interpretation of participation itself is elastic and strongly debated because of the varying outcomes being pursued. This is a useful point to discuss further as citizens’ perceptions of participation as part of the decision-making process can vary, causing dissatisfaction and disappointment (Cook, 2006; De Bussy & Kelly, 2010; Goldman, 2004). Explaining the variation in expectation Bruning and Ledingham (1999) state that participation covers a wide spectrum of active relationships, from the provision of information through to specific consultation, partnerships and even community decision-making. The amount of citizen

Theorists such as Arnstein (1969) and Drydyk (2005) focus on citizen control, arguing that involvement can only be true participation if it entails influencing results and being directly involved. Arnstein’s writing on citizen participation acknowledges that community

involvement can take many forms. Her ladder of participation stretches from simple information sharing through to the most expansive empowered public involvement. Under Arnstein’s description of participation options, local government’s consultation is placed a step below placation and partnership, and is labelled as tokenism. Drydyk reinforces this negative assessment asserting that satisfaction with participation can only come from control over one’s environment. Similarly, Moloney (2006) contends that for citizens to have a chance to influence an outcome, there must be communication equality in democracy.

Taking a slightly different view, Burns et al. (1994) modified Arnstein’s ladder, breaking down participation into three essential levels. At the highest level, citizen control has control being interdependent, entrusted or delegated but firmly with the citizen. Citizen participation, which includes partnerships, some decentralised decision-making, advisory boards, good consultation and high quality information combined with decision responsibility. At the lowest level of participation, citizen non-participation is simply a representative type of customer care, characterised by poor information, poor consultation and public relations spin.

Arnstein’s early ideas endure and New Zealand agencies have used them as a basis for developing models on strengthening relationships. A Ministry of Social Development (2008) think-tank summarised participation as a relatively simple four-stage spectrum that focuses on the type of communication relationship. Figure 1 reveals a hierarchy of communication relationships moving from one-way communication moving through to two-way

communication, and then community empowerment.

Information provision

One-off consultation on specific issues

Collaboration processes and partnerships

Community decision-making

Figure 1: Active relationships

Lowndes and Sullivan (2008) advance the discussion on participation by emphasising the size of geographical areas that might successfully support participation in decision-making by citizens. They propose the neighbourhood unit as ideal and add another overlay of

consideration, analysing structures according to the civic, social, political and economic benefits. The neighbourhood concept is an interesting one and has commonalities with the early search for responsiveness in New Zealand (discussed in Chapter Two) that led to the proliferation of local bodies in the last century. It also moves away from the liberalist

approach encouraged by present legislation and so prevalent in New Zealand today, and goes back to geographically defined community groupings. Lowndes and Sullivan advocate that a civic approach can build cohesive communities with active empowered citizens through participative democracy. Table 1 takes up these structures and further describes the ideal state of neighbourhood empowerment as participatory democracy.

Table 1: Ideal types of neighbourhood governance

Neighbourhood empowerment Neighbourhood partnership Neighbourhood government Neighbourhood management Primary rationale

Civic Social Political Economic

Key objectives Active citizens

and cohesive communities Citizen well- being and regeneration Responsive and accountable decision-making More effective local service delivery Democratic device Participatory democracy Stakeholder democracy Representative democracy Market democracy

Citizen role Citizen voice Partner loyalty Elector vote Consumer choice

Institutional forms Forums, co- production Service board, mini internal service provider Town councils, area boards and committees

Contracts, charters

Source: Adapted from Lowndes, V and Sullivan H,Public Administration, Vol 86, No. 1, 2008, (53 – 74).

Small units are associated with responsiveness and high levels of participation and

commitment (Pratchett, 2004) as opposed to large-scale government, which exchanges these for scales of economy, equity and efficiency (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008). However, while the neighbourhood theories seem to be reinforced by higher levels of participation reported in

adequately reflect the LGA 2002 legislative requirement to recognise communities of interest (e.g. new migrants, or mountain-bikers). These groups of interest would not necessarily cluster in geographical neighbourhood unit, but more likely be joined by common behaviours or needs.

Interestingly, critics of the participative decision-making process do identify that it has more chance of success at local rather than national level, citing size as influencing potential success (Stewart, 1996). Early commentators like Schumpeter (1979) and cast doubt on the value of consultation saying submitters did not have the skill or commitment to master most political problems. However, Nash (2007), Cheyne (2002), and Drage (2008) counter this argument by noting that the rising education levels, knowledge and skills now in

communities can add significant value to the final decision. Additionally, participation achieves outcomes outside the actual decision made, including liberty (Sharpe, 1970) and increased feelings of citizenship and community identity (Cheyne, 1997; Comrie, 1998; Drydyk, 2005; Forgie, 2001; Lowndes, 2004; Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008; Moloney, 2006).

Indeed ‘community’ is a central theme in participative democracy, as it is in present local government legislation, yet it is an elusive descriptor. The meaning of the term community appears fundamental to understanding inclusivity and effective consultation by councils, and must be reflected in the targeting activities of consultation planning. Barnett and Crowther (1998) cite some 94 studies on the definition of community, finding that the only common component is people. In a much earlier work on the sociology of community, Bell and Newby (1971, p. 16) state “beneath the surface of many community studies lurk value judgements of varying degrees or explicitness about what constitutes the good life”. Community is typically removed from normative understandings in political and public policy discussion, being used as a description for ideological engagement, and in this respect the interpretative meaning of community has become tacit, linked to ideals or to a future to aspire to (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008).

Beauchamp and Bowie (1997) say that philosophers like Plato, Rousseau, Hegel and Weber have described community in philosophy as an entity within a territorially defined geography (although a boundary varies in size). There is a sense of emotional ties for those within, and from, the community, but there is no one interpretation of common good. Philosophically, if modern world is characterised by organisation and loss of the sense of belonging, community

is therefore an ideal that seeks to reunite and to “bind man socially while allowing him to be physically free” (Scherer, 1972, p. 13).

Jacobs (1994, as cited in Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008) observes that there is general

acceptance that communities are a social construct, typically a built environment with some geographical borders, although the understanding of these parameters vary amongst

inhabitants. However, Jacobs emphasises that a community is only a community when the inhabitants see it as one – then it forms a basis for interaction, attachment, and as channels for self-expression.