– – – –
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AS A MEANS BEYOND DECORATIVE PLANNING – AN EXAMPLE OF AUSTRIA’S DANGER ZONE
PLANNING
Cathérine D. Gamper1,2 INTRODUCTION
It is often argued whether public good decisions with a high degree of uncertainty should be solely left to expert bodies for decision-making. Imperfect knowledge of experts leaves an uncertain level of risk to the public or the affected groups of persons. Direct participation of affected parties in such decisions is believed to be valuable in many ways. On the one hand, it allows final decision makers’ choices to be more accepted among stakeholders and on the other hand, knowledge by the experts can be complemented with the one by affected parties.
Economically this instrument may serve to decrease inefficiencies normally assumed from agents’ offices. In the present paper, these assumptions are analysed for the decision process of danger zone planning in Austria, where participatory elements are legally prescribed.
CASE STUDY BACKGROUND
The management of natural hazards poses numerous challenges to decision makers. Naturally, states’ budgets are restricted, thus a full protection cannot be achieved by any means. Avoid- ing catastrophes by settling in non dangerous areas is in most of the cases impossible: settling areas become more and more scarce in regions like Tyrol and Vorarlberg (Austria), where by nature only 16 per cent of the area can actually be used, so fled is no option. The questions that arise are: what protection level do we want to achieve? What remaining risk do we ac- cept? How do we allocate our budgets? Above all, the question is: who is to decide on these issues? Certainly, only experts are able to tell us what technical measures are needed to sup- port a certain risk level. Problems arise if these decisions are not in line with the preferences of the affected parties. In order to avoid such catastrophes and negative consequences of deci- sions for protection ahead of it, it is often argued that some sort of conflict resolution is needed. In the literature it is argued that direct public participation can resolve especially con- flicts around the environment (De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001; Bloomfield et al., 2001; Beierle and Konisky, 2001; Renn et al., 1985; Messner et al., 2006).
In Austria, public participation has a long tradition in spatial planning, of which danger zone planning forms a part. The later builds the basis of the present case study.
THE CASE STUDY DATA AND EXPECTED RESULTS
The present case study looks at this participation element of danger zone planning in the re- gions of Tyrol and Vorarlberg (Austria) that comprise 279 and 96 municipalities respectively.
Out of these villages, about 80% are exposed to the risk of natural hazards and therefore re-
1 Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstr. 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria (email: catherine.gamper@uibk.ac.at; fax: +43 512 507 2970)
2 alpS Centre for Natural Hazard Management, Innsbruck, Austria
– – – –
quire danger zone plans. The data is based on the documentation done by the Austrian Federal Service for Torrents and Avalanches (WLV) on the creation of these plans. In an econometric analysis using OLS and maximum likelihood (Probit and Logit) regression tools the effects of political economic and social variables on the extent of participation in danger zone planning are estimated.
Affected citizens can participate by bringing in written statements if they can make their points valid. In 70% of the cases, this tool is actively being used, whereby 13 statements are being brought in on average. In more than 80% of these cases, people appeal by themselves without the support of a lawyer or a larger citizen’s initiative. Against the common assump- tion that participation is often used as a mere decorative planning element, the opposite can be observed in the present case study. In about 70% of the cases, statements are, at least in part, taken into consideration in the re-drafting of the plan by the commission. In the present paper, these results are discussed in more detail as well as the driving forces analysed and the effects of participation in real practice drawn out.
REFERENCES
Beierle, T.C. and Konisky, D.M., 2001. What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement?
Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Plan- ning C: Government and Policy, 19:515-527.
Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C., Munton, R., 2001. Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19:501-513.
De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J.R., 2001. Participatory approaches to environmental policy, Cam- bridge research for the Environment, Department of Land Economy, University of Cam- bridge, Cambridge.
Messner, F., Zwirner, O., Karkuschke, M., 2006. Participation in multi-criteria decision sup- port for the resolution of water allocation problem in the Spree river basin. Land Use Policy, 23:63-75.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P., 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participa- tion: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Keywords: Natural Hazards, Decision-making, Participation, Danger Zone Planning, Austria
