The environment, and consequently the responsibility for its protection, belongs to everyone. Therefore, the public should be included in environmental policy discussions, even when their knowledge is limited. However, that responsibility comes with the responsibility to make informed choices rather than basing opinions on the emotional appeal of a creature or a situation. (Yes, it is a cute critter, but over-population and starvation is a hard way to die.) Those who choose to participate in such discussions have an obligation to inform themselves about the science behind the issue. Public managers and environmental planners have an obligation to provide as much information as the public requires, written in layman's terms instead of scientific jargon, to make informed, educated decisions. In addition, the public should have access to all information used to evaluate the issues and have the opportunity to talk with researchers. In cases where it is possible, the public should be invited to view the environmental problem or situation first-hand. The public also needs to be well-informed concerning the economic costs and any associated environmental or social consequences of proposed environmental policies.
Public participation can provide valuable insight to decision-makers while increasing public acceptance of environmental policies. Nonetheless, the weight given to public participation and public opinion in environmental policy-making must be tempered by informed logic on the part of planners and managers. Even an informed public may not fully grasp the implications of some policy decisions because their logic is clouded by emotional responses.
28 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While I agree that members of the public have a responsibility to be informed, I find that there may be no way to ensure that they are. I wonder if public administrators have a higher responsibility to ensure a certain level of understanding past simply making information available. In the end, it may often be very difficult to hear the voices of the concerned over the voices of the emotional. And perhaps there is a certain value in that as well.
I envision the public participating in workshops and informational sessions, not simply being handed reams of documents. As for emotional responses, that lends itself to what I think of as the "Bambi syndrome" and the NIMBY problem. We currently have thousands of acres of forest that constitute a fire hazard, partly because of faulty management practices, but largely because the public did not want to see any trees cut or brush cleared. In addition, they wanted all fires suppressed. This was an emotional, not a logical, science-based approach. When we think of Bambi and Thumper consumed in a forest fire, it tugs at the heart-strings. When we have over-grown forests that threaten humans, we demand that the government take action. Had the public been more informed about fire ecology, management may have taken a different approach and we might not have the current situation.
Post a Comment