Crisis Planning and the General Public in Environmental Protection

Abstract

Public informing and participation in decision-making related to environmental protection as an important element of engaging stakeholders often excludes crisis planning. In environmental impact assessment procedures, there is often an organizational crisis involving three or four participants, normally the investor/applicant, the county office or ministry managing impact the assessment, the police overseeing the protests, and the judiciary as a result of rights given to the general and concerned public by the Aarhus Convention. Indications of a crisis appear some time before the situation threatens the organization or its partners, and consist of minor incidents that the organization has ignored or deemed insignificant for the final objectives. Unexpected crises bring uncertainty and risks – organizations cannot identify causes or consequences, all efforts are ineffective, while the threats to the entire project and the final objectives are increased. This paper analyses the differences in informing/participation of the general and concerned public in debates on decision-making in urban planning, and public debates on decision-making in environmental impact studies in the case of Lećevica Waste Management Center in Split-Dalmatia County. Methods for the collection of empirical data included problem-focused, in-depth interviews and participating observation. Grounded theory was used in analyzing the empirical material with initial, axial and selective coding. The frequency and absolute and relative cumulative value of coded responses were calculated using descriptive statistics. Results repeatedly showed shortcomings in adopting urban planning documents. Direct/indirect pressures from the politicians and the quiet administrative support or obstruction of administrative bodies are noticeable, including the changes in politics depending on the position of the ruling party/opposition at the state/local level.