EVALUACIÓN DE LA REMOCIÓN DEL COLOR REAL DEL EFLUENTE

An examination of the literature revealed that the language that described Victorian local government’s community building role was diverse and included a number of phrases that were used as a synonym for this role. Examples included community development (Mowbray 1999; Municipal Association of Victoria 2005a; Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Transport and Regional Services 2006); community strengthening (Raysmith 2002; Broad 2003; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Brackertz et al 2005; Wiseman 2006); community cohesion (Local Government Act 1989 Part 1A section 3D); social and well-being (Australian Local Government Association 1997); cohesion and community development (Australian Local Government Association 1997; Chapman 1997a; Hunt 1998a) and social development (Dollery, Crase and Johnson 2006).

In some cases a number of phrases were used interchangeably, in particular community building and community strengthening (Raysmith 2001; Department for Victorian Communities 2004; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Butler 2005; Johnson, Headley and Jensen 2005).

It was noted that the discussion paper Community strengthening and the role of local government (Local Government Victoria 2004a), utilized the terms community strengthening, community building, social inclusion and creating social and community capital interchangeably (Interface Councils 2004; Victorian Local Governance Association 2004).

The term community building was the most consistently used phrase in the literature (Victorian Local Governance Association 2001a; Raysmith 2001, 2002; Edgar 2002; Digby 2002; Kiss 2003; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Brackertz et al 2005; Butler 2005; Mowbray 2005; Wiseman 2005; McShane 2006) and was therefore used in this

thesis. References that were relevant to Victorian local government’s community building role have been utilized, even if the specific term ‘community building’ was not used.

An analysis of the literature revealed that Victorian local government’s role in terms of community building was framed within a number of contexts.

In a federal, Victorian state and Victorian local government policy context, community building initiatives were based on the philosophies as espoused by social capital (Raysmith 2001; Edgar 2002; Broad 2003; Coghill 2003; Productivity Commission 2003; Department for Victorian Communities 2004; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Brackertz et al 2005; Butler 2005; Johnson, Headley and Jensen 2005; McShane 2006; Wiseman 2006). While social capital was not a straightforward concept (Productivity Commission 2003; Brackertz et al 2005; Adams and Hess 2006), it was defined as the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively (Woolcock and Narayan 2000 cited Brackertz et al 2005 p.21) (also refer Cox 1995; Putnam 2003; Johnson, Headley and Jensen 2005).

Community building was defined as a way of exploring more engaged and networked approaches to policy development which was underpinned by linking residents, community organizations, and public and private sector organizations (Edgar 2002; Raysmith 2002; Broad 2003, 2004; Local Government Victoria 2004a, 2004b; Wiseman 2006). Within this framework Raysmith (2001) maintained that community building was about the way government’s governed, engaging those for whom they governed, maximizing resources and harnessing the benefits from collective decision making, local action and joined up approaches.

Community building was especially relevant as a way to build the capacity of communities to actively engage in a diverse range of social, economic, cultural, recreational, learning and civic activities, through the involvement of the three levels of government (Broad 2003; Hill and Wiseman 2004; Local Government Victoria 2004a, 2004b). The aim of community building was to assist communities to become stronger through local initiatives so that specific issues and priorities were systematically

addressed (Local Government Victoria 2004b). An important aspect of community building was the establishment of respectful partnerships between all relevant parties (Hill and Wiseman 2004).

Community building was viewed as an extension of Victorian local government’s democratic and democratic governance roles and was strongly linked with the principles of participatory democracy through the outcomes of community engagement, partnerships and connecting people to decision making structures (Raysmith 2001; Hill and Wiseman 2004; Brackertz et al 2005; McShane 2006). Stronger communities were created through community building initiatives due to an enhanced relationship with government and vice versa (Raysmith 2001; Brackertz et al 2005).

While it was acknowledged in the literature that Victorian local government had been involved in community building for a number of years, this role had been given a higher profile due to the Victorian State Government’s agenda (Raysmith 2001; Broad 2003; Local Government Victoria 2004a, 2005; Blacher 2005a). Raysmith (2001) stated that

community building is rife across Victoria (p.2).

In 2004 Local Government Victoria produced a discussion paper that defined a context for Victorian local government’s role in community building from a state government’s perspective and outlined three potential pathways for local government to consider in terms of delivering its community building role (Local Government Victoria 2004a).

In response to the 2004 discussion paper a number of views were submitted from Victorian local government and local government organizations (Local Government Victoria 2004b). There was not a consensus on the preferred model for community building as presented by the Victorian state government, but there was a preference for a devolved governance pathway (Local Government Victoria 2004b). The Municipal Association of Victoria (2004), Victorian Local Governance Association (2004) and the Interface Councils (2004) expressed a number of concerns about the directions of the 2004 discussion paper.

In addition to the community building objectives of the state government, there were a number of reasons identified in the literature that outlined the rationale as to why Victorian local government had a role in community building. Victorian local government was seen as pivotal in actively progressing community building and had a strong record of achievement in this field (Raysmith 2001, 2002; Broad 2003; Coghill 2003; Local Government Victoria 2004a, 2004b, 2005).

As a level of government in its own right, Victorian local government’s community building role was viewed to be fundamental due to its proximity to the community and its interactions with other levels of government and the private sector (Galligan 1996; Newnham and Winston 1997; Rentschler 1997; Self 1997; Williams 1998; Latham 2000; Tod 2001; Coghill 2003; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Brackertz et al 2005).

It was stated that Victorian local government had a particular role to play in community building due to its democratic base that was both accountable and provided a strong framework to build partnerships (Raysmith 2001). Evidence of this democratic base was Victorian local government’s involvement in community building programs in partnership with the community, not-for-profit organizations and the private sector (Local Government Victoria 2004a, 2005; Brackertz et al 2005).

It was further considered that Victorian local government was well placed to assist in community building through its facilitation of civic pride and the development of a community identity (Latham 2000; West 2002). It was stated that there was a renewed interest from communities in social connectedness and cooperation through joint local government and community programs (Hill and Wiseman 2004).

While speaking about the United States of America, Etzioni (1993) presented the view that the local community was the critical basis for the development of a social fabric where shared values could be nurtured (also refer Plein, Green and Williams 1998). This view was relevant to the implementation of community building in a Victorian context. Local government as one of society’s key institutions that understood the needs and

interests of the local community, was best placed to assist in the rebuilding of civic engagement through community building (Etzioni 1993; Russell 1996).

Community building was also viewed within the context of local leadership that was present through Victorian local government’s elected representatives and the services and social infrastructure that local government provided (Latham 2000; Local Government Victoria 2004a; Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Transport and Regional Services 2006).

2.3.3.2 Limitations to Victorian Local Government’s Community Building