Environmental Planners should engage the public when dealing with environmental issues of any kind especially if it is an issue that the public knowledge is limited about. As professionals we have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide information to stakeholder in a media in which they can understand it. Also, public comment is a require part of the NEPA process. The letter and spirit of NEPA is create a harmony between humans and their environment, and
The Council for Environmental Quality does provide professional guidance on this matter, and if you are a certified planner (AICP) then your code of conduct also requires that you actively inform stakeholders and work to include public participation in the planning process.
Given the current state of distrust with government, through education and the communication of accurate information the likelihood of community buy-in may be significantly increased if the public is educated on the matter, and they feel the development and technical teams have been forthcoming with them throughout the process.
Collaboration in a project means the stakeholder will assume ownership in ensuring a timely and positive outcome.
A more challenging concept would be to justify why the public shouldn't be informed on matters of environmental concern.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rick,
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with your arguement. As professionals we do have a moral and ethical resposibility to inform the public about environmental issues. The best way to do that is to be explain things in the way that is easy to understand and to always be open to answer questions. I also agree that the public has become less trusting with the government. The best way to regain that trust is to be honest and inform the public on the issues and get them involved in the process in any way possible.
Ryan Kotsur
I like how you bring up the moral and ethical aspects of engagements. After all, we elect these officials and pay their salaries through our tax dollars. Isn't transparency is a basic requirement of that?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with your comments about public engagement. James is right, transparency is a basic requirement. I cannot help but think about PAF 503 and the need to provide the public with the greatest common interest and net benefit. What if you have a policy that all experts can agree is in the best interest of the public health. Or even more important, the health of the environment. Its also extremely unpopular policy that will hinder financial growth, or something to that nature. This is a great example of the conflicting requirements of public management. So what do you do?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that communicating with the public and maintaining collaboration with the public on environmental concerns is important. The public must be engaged in this process in order for the decisions to be representative of the whole, and to ensure that their voices are a contributing factor in the final outcome.
ReplyDelete-Christiana
An economist refers to scarcity as the basic problem.
ReplyDeleteA public manager may refer to the basic problem as the conflict between environmental stewardship and economics.
Any requirements as a result of the NEPA process or any other framework is viewed as pure overhead to a capitalist, and will be fulfilled at the least net sum cost (even if that means litigation).
Until the basic problem is addressed, no stimulus package or tax reform is going change anything in the long-term.
How does sustainable living and the right to grow and prosper mesh, and in the U.S. growth means expansion, which to a capitalist means the most for the most for the least.
Not to pick a side, only to point out the obvious.