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

1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority

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

PROVINCIAL

Policy:Policy:

NATIONAL

PROVINCIAL

Policy:Policy:

NATIONAL

PROVINCIAL

REGIONAL

Policy:Policy:

NATIONAL

PROVINCIAL

REGIONAL

MUNICIPAL

Policy:Policy:

NATIONAL

PROVINCIAL

REGIONAL

MUNICIPAL

LOCAL

Policy:Policy:

Local Policy

National Policy

NATIONAL

PROVINCIAL

REGIONAL

MUNICIPAL

LOCAL

Policy:Policy:

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

Top 3 rungs are MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION

6) Partnership - negotiated sharing of power

7) Delegated Power - specific powers are delegated directly to citizenry

8) Citizen Control – citizens have the majority of decision making seats, or full managerial power

Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder