ORIGINAL ARTICLES ADRS Ann. Disaster Risk Sci. 2018, 1, 57-65

CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Merica Pletikosić1, Majda Tafra-Vlahović2 1Cemex Hrvatska, Kaštel Sućurac, 2Majda Tafra-Vlahović, University of Applied Sciences Baltazar, Zaprešić, Croatia

Abstract Public informing and participation in decision-making related to environmental protection as an important element of enga- ging stakeholders often excludes crisis planning. In environmental impact assessment procedures, there is often an organizatio- nal crisis involving three or four participants, normally the investor/applicant, the county offi ce 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 insignifi cant for the fi nal objectives. Unexpected crises bring uncertainty and risks – organizations cannot identify causes or consequences, all eff orts are ineff ective, while the threats to the entire project and the fi nal objectives are increased. Th is paper analyses the diff erences in informing/ participation of the general and concerned public in debates on decision-making in urban planning, and public debates on de- cision-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. Th e 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 administra- tive 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. Keywords: informing the public, public participation, crisis planning, waste management. Adress for correspondence: Merica Pletikosić, Cemex Hrvatska, F. Tuđmana 45, 21212 Kaštel Sućurac, Croatia, e-mail: [email protected].

1. INTRODUCTION re relationships based on equality with relevant organizations and groups; the organization that An approach to crisis management based on complexity has an eff ect on the entire practice of manages the crisis must accept all participants as the organization, since it emphasizes the unpre- equal, including the media [2]. During the proce- dictable and unknown events that the organizati- dures of environmental impact assessments, an on would have to accept and respond to, as in the organizational crisis oft en occurs and that inclu- example of Weick’s sense-making organization, des three or four organizations in the process: an which is an active participant in an unpredictable investor or applicant, the competent county offi ce world instead of just passively responding to it [1]. or a ministry carrying out impact assessment of Th erefore, skills like improvisation, information the planned activity on the environment, police gathering, and continuous refl ective practice, awa- departments that control the protests and the ju- reness of the situation, risk assessment and pro- diciary as a result of the rights of the general public blem solving are the key for the practice of eff ective and interested public by the Aarhus Convention. crisis management. Th e rules for eff ective commu- Th e fi rst signs of a possible crisis appear a year or nication during a crisis are: begin with setting the two before the crisis becomes a threat to the orga- goals of the crisis communication; develop since- nization or its partners, and they consist of a single 57 M. Pletikosić1, M. Tafra-Vlahović

incident or minor incidents that are ignored by ronment, Physical Planning and Constructi- the organizations and are estimated as not being on. able to exert a signifi cant impact on achieving the 4. Due to the complexity of resolving property fi nal goal. Th e result generated by such unexpec- and legal issues at the Lećevica site and the ted crises is great uncertainty and increasing risks alignment with the new regulations of the Wa- in which the organization cannot identify all the ste Management Plan for the period of 2007- causes and possible fi nal consequences, the eff orts 2015, the project activities were signifi cantly invested do not achieve the desired eff ects and slowed down so the documentation for the the threat endangering the entire project and the preliminary design was completed in 2012. achievement of the target objectives is increased. 5. Rapid and complex activities on the project Possible diff erences in the information and parti- continued during 2015. Th e Ministry of Envi- cipation of the general public are analyzed in this ronment and Nature issued a Decision for the paper. Additionally, the authors address public Planned Intervention in Lećevica on the 18th debates among the general public regarding the of December 2015, for a total of six reloading decisions about spatial planning and public deba- stations (PS) in the Split-Dalmatia County: tes related to decision-making on environmental PS Kukuzovac, PS , PS Karepovac, impact studies based on the case study of the Re- PS , PS Stari Grad on , PS Brač in the gional Waste Management Center Lećevica in the Municipality of Pučišća. Th e Decision states Split-Dalmatia County. that, upon the completion of the procedure 1.1. Chronology of the case: related to the evaluation of the need for an environmental impact assessment procedu- 1. Defi ning the potential location for a waste re, neither is the environmental impact asse- management center is a very demanding and ssment required, nor is it necessary to carry sensitive procedure. A study done by several out the main evaluation in order to determine authors in 2001 in order to provide further whether the project is appropriate for an eco- study of potential locations for a waste ma- logical network. nagement center in Split-Dalmatia County has proposed three potential sites: Lećevica, Opor 6. Location permits for all transfer stations were and Otišić. Th e location in the municipality of issued from January to March 2016 by the Lećevica was chosen as the best suited, since it competent administrative department of the meets all the natural, physical, economic and Split-Dalmatia County. other criteria that can be established without 7. Th e assessment of whether an environmen- conducting additional research. tal impact assessment procedure was needed 2. By announcing the public inspection in April for the changes to the plan, requested by the 2005 the implementation process of envi- Waste Management Center in Split-Dalmatia ronmental impact assessment for the project County for the site at Lećevica, was launched “Regional Waste Management Center in the in March 2016. municipality of Lećevica” began, while the 8. Contracts and documents on the establishment county established a company to manage the of the right to construct 6 transfer stations were Center, called the Regional Center for a Clean signed April to October 2016. Environment Ltd. 9. All activities within the scope of the project 3. Th e procedure was completed in November carried out by Split-Dalmatia County / Re- 2006, with the Decision on Environmental gional Clean Environment Center Ltd. were Acceptability adopted by the Ministry of Envi- conducted in cooperation with the Fund for 58 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Environmental Protection, the Ministry res- tion of the center in Lećevica. Th e research for this ponsible for environmental protection and paper was carried out during 2014 and in the early JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects 2015, when in the available documents there was in the EU Regions: the European Commissi- no sign that the communication plan for the cen- on, the European Investment Bank and the ter in Lećevica was made, along with everything European Bank for Reconstruction and Deve- that it implied. In this case, the communication lopment); the approval of JASPERS was obtai- with the general public was the reason the whole ned in October 2016. process of environmental impact assessment was delayed, including the adoption of amendments 10. On the 16th of November 2016, aft er the eva- to the spatial plan by the county of Split-Dalma- luation of the need for environmental impact tia, who had to predict the location of the center. assessment, the Ministry of Environment Ecological organizations and the interested public and Energy adopted a Decision by which the used protests to interfere with the public debates, planned intervention does not require a new so the meetings of the expert committee had to environmental impact assessment, but the take place in Zagreb instead of at the location of environmental protection measures must be the site. In all these documents the compliance applied. with spatial planning documents was highlighted, 11. On the 21st of November 2016, the Ministry but the participation of the public has not been of Environment and Energy issued a Decision made clear and neither has the participation of which terminated the Decision issued on the the interested public in its creation. In the example 16th of November 2016. of Lećevica the same shortcomings were evident Current Status: In November of 2016, the Mi- in creating valid documents (regulations, plans, nistry of Environmental Protection canceled the strategies, etc.) as well as in their implementation, with clear defi ciencies in the information and par- previously issued positive opinion for the continu- ticipation of the public and the interested public, ation of the project and the Split-Dalmatia County education and preparation of all the stakeholders. and the Regional Center for Clean Environment Th ose defi ciencies should have been eliminated or Ltd. was waiting for a new decision of the compe- adjusted to the procedures before their execution, tent minister. which then resulted in the extension of the project Th e conclusion of the analyzed case: Th e Le- or it being put on hold. Although there are many ćevica case was created as a result of solving the objections to the communication with the public Karepovac case – an uncoordinated landfi ll for and public participation in the regulations, the the municipal waste for the city of Split and other Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection cities and municipalities in the Split-Dalmatia Co- did not include in the Strategic Plan for the period unty that use Karepovac as their municipal waste 2013 – 2015 as either general or specifi c objectives disposal site. Baška Voda, , , Kašte- any improvements or enhancements to public re- la, , Lećevica, , Marina, Muć, Okrug, lations and public participation in the prescribed Omiš, Podgora, , Prgomet, Primorski processes. Th ese include primarily early infor- Dolac, Seget, , Tučepi. Th e result of all the ming and involving the public in the decision-ma- events in the past fi ft een years, since the problem of king of spatial plans and early informing and in- rehabilitating Karepovac and constructing a waste volving the public in the decision-making process management plant has been in the spotlight, is that regarding environmental protection. Th e analysis there is no visible progress on the rehabilitation of of studies in the case of Lećevica indicates strong Karepovac, while in the last two years, however, public engagement which opposed the realization signifi cant progress was made in the implementa- of the project at the time when the public debates 59 M. Pletikosić1, M. Tafra-Vlahović

on the environmental impact study were organi- pondents were divided into 10 subsamples (target zed. Th e aim of this paper is to use the results of groups) which were qualitatively defi ned with 10 the empirical research to determine the relation entities: between the information that the public received 1. STUDY MAKERS – persons authorized by and their attitudes towards the extent to which the the Ministry of Environmental and Nature public was provided suffi cient information during Protection; the process of adoption of spatial plans for the 2. DEVELOPERS – investors; planned Waste Management Center in Lećevica. 3. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT/COM- Based on the previously defi ned objective of the MITTEE – representatives of the governing study, the general hypothesis (HG) is defi ned as body conducting the process, and members of follows: there are signifi cant diff erences between committees for study evaluation; the entities in the target and sector groups with 4. CITIES – representatives of the employees regard to the awareness and attitudes to the extent of the city administration for environmental the public debate provided enough information protection responsible for conducting public to the general public during the process of spatial debates, and spatial planning representatives; plan adoption for the planned Waste Management 5. COUNTIES – representatives of the em- Center in Lećevica, as well as regarding the future ployees of the county administration for envi- use of space and planned projects. ronmental protection responsible for con- 2. METHODS ducting public debates, and spatial planning representatives; Th e qualitative study was carried out using a 6. ASSOCIATIONS – representatives of non-go- purposive sample and the methods of in-depth vernmental environmental associations; interview and participant observation. Th e met- hod of grounded theory was used in the analysis 7. CIVIL INITIATIVES – representatives of NGOs and the civil society who are involved of the empirical material. Th ree basic types of co- in the process, but are not environmentally ding were applied: open or initial coding, axial co- oriented; ding, and selective coding. Th e initial coding fi rst included the rearranging and sorting of the data, 8. ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS – representa- noting similarities and forming response groups. tives of the Croatian Employers’ Association, Final analysis and categorization of the key con- Croatian Chamber of Commerce, and other cepts created the conceptual matrix with the con- economic interest associations; tent of qualitative empirical material in the inte- 9. POLITICAL PARTIES – representatives of grated theoretical framework [8, 9]. Inductive and political structures which are included in the deductive methods were used on the data, as well process; as the methods of analysis and synthesis, compa- 10. SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS – representa- rison method, classifi cation method, and the des- tives of academic institutions and journalists criptive method [10]. Th e study was conducted in who are involved in the process. 2014. Respondent selection was done according Th ree new qualitatively defi ned control groups to previously set criteria: a target sample of par- (clusters) were classifi ed based on the above su- ticipants in the empirical study who are involved bsamples: in the procedures relevant to the research either 1. PUBLIC SECTOR – 40 respondents from tar- professionally or voluntarily [11]. Th e sample was get groups: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT/ defi ned with 100 entities, 46 males and 54 females. COMMITTEE, CITY, COUNTY, SCIENTI- Th e average respondent age was 52.1 years. Res- STS/JOURNALISTS; 60 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2. CIVIL SECTOR – 30 respondents from target site for the construction of the county waste ma- groups: ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC INITIATI- nagement center. Th e whole procedure should VES, POLITICAL PARTIES; have been clearer. It was emphasized that this was 3. ECONOMIC SECTOR – 30 respondents from a possible location and not the fi nal one, so that the target groups: STUDY MAKERS, DEVELO- plan could be passed more easily. Spatial plans were PERS, ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS. made by the politicians according to how it suited Research material consisted of two dependent them; the public was not able to infl uence their de- (grouping) variables according to the criteria of the cisions. Th ey believed that the public was not fully target group, the criteria of the control group, and informed about the procedure and the importance one independent variable. Th e respondents were of making spatial plans, which is also the reason asked to state their opinion on whether there were there has not been enough awareness regarding the diff erences between the public and the interested importance of their reaction in the process of draf- public in environmental impact assessment pro- ting and creating of the plan. Th ey pointed out that the public inspection did not provide enough infor- cedures. Th e responses related to the two indepen- mation because the public was not familiar enough dent variables were coded with a measuring scale with what the individual zones or marks in the plan from 1 to 3. We calculated the following descriptive meant. Th ere has also been a lack of understanding parameters: frequency and cumulative relative va- and interpretation of the legend of the plan. lues of the responses in the whole sample, and in the predetermined focus and control groups. Proce- Quantitatively, these answers are coded as zero ssing was carried out using the Statistica Ver.11.00 (0), for the upcoming statistical processing of the soft ware suite [12]. data. Another group answered that it either did not 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION know, was not sure, or it did not have an attitude Quantitative processing of the variable entity and their opinion is the following: I’m not familiar matrix was based on the answers to the qualitatively enough with the topic, I believe that perhaps the defi ned question of the interview, which is: Do you public inspection should have been managed diff e- think the public debates in the process of adopting rently; I do not have enough information. spatial plans for the planned Waste Management Quantitatively, these answers are coded as one Center in Lećevica provided suffi cient informati- (1) for the upcoming statistical processing of the on to the public on the future use of the space and data. planned projects? A third group of subjects was classifi ed accor- Th e subjects were asked to express their views ding to their affi rmative answer and supported the and opinions on whether suffi cient information on following statement: yes, the public was adequately the future use of space and planned projects can be informed during the adoption of the spatial plan obtained only through public inspection into the of the Split-Dalmatia County in relation to the process of adoption of spatial plans for the Lećevica planned county Waste Management Center in Le- area in Split-Dalmatia County. ćevica, the public debates were in accordance with Th e answers given were defi ned at three levels. the legal requirements, the procedure was fully res- Th e fi rst group classifi es those entities that answe- pected and that was suffi cient. However, the public red negatively and expressed the following views: is mostly uninterested when the spatial plan is ini- no, the public was not adequately informed during tially being adopted and they react too late, when the creation of the spatial plan of the Split-Dalma- the environmental studies are already being initia- tia County about this location being the intended ted. Th ey believed that the environmental organi- 61 M. Pletikosić1, M. Tafra-Vlahović

zations and civil initiatives reacted too late, mostly Quantitatively, these answers were coded as two aft er the plan has been adopted, and only at the le- (2) for the upcoming statistical processing of data. vel of the environmental impact studies, that they Th e title for the answer in the statistical analysis lacked the expertise and only got involved with the has been defi ned with the variable carrying the big projects, when it was necessary to stand against code name public inspection Lećevica_enough in- something. It is also unknown if they ever had any formation. eff ect on the increase in the knowledge and under- Table 1 shows the results of how frequent all standing of the role of the public in the process of of the entities from the public inspection Lećevi- draft ing and adopting spatial planning documents. ca_enough information variable are. Table 1 Th e absolute and relative cumulative frequencies of public inspection Lećevica _enough information, N = 100

Responses Frequency Cumulative relative frequency 0 57 57.00 1 3 60.00 2 40 100.00 Legend: 0 – no; 1 –I don’t know, I’m not sure; 2 – yes.

In total, around 57% of subjects believe that while 40% believe that such information was suffi - the public was not adequately informed during cient to act in accordance with regulations, but public debates in the process of developing a re- that the majority was not interested and joined in gional plan of the Split-Dalmatia County for the too late. planned Waste Management Center in Lećevica, Table 2 Frequency variable public inspection Lećevica_enough information according to the target group, N = 100

Responses SM DE ME CI CO AS CI EA PP S/J Total 0 636219978657 1 11100000003 2 363891132440

Legend: 0 – no; 1 –I don’t know, I’m not sure; 2 – yes.

SM – STUDY MAKERS – persons authorized by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection; DE – DEVELOPERS – investors; ME – MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT/COMMITTEE – representatives of the governing body conducting the process, and members of committees for study evaluation; CI – CITIES – representatives of the employees of the city administration for environmental protection responsible for conducting public debates and spatial planning representatives; CO – COUNTIES – representatives of the employees of the county administration for environmental protection responsible for conducting public debates and spatial planning representatives; AS – ASSOCIATIONS – representatives of non-governmental environmental associations; CI – CIVIL INITIATIVES – representatives of NGOs and civil society who are involved in the process, but are not environmentally oriented; EA – ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS – representatives of the Croatian Employers’ Association, Croatian Chamber of Commerce, and other economic interest associations; PP – POLITICAL PARTIES – representatives of political structures which are included in the process; S/J – SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS – representatives of academic institutions and journalists who are involved in the process.

62 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Th e analysis of Table 2 shows that the represen- ENVIRONMENT / COMMISSION share the same tatives of target groups are bipolar when it comes to mindset and attitudes while the representatives of their attitude on the variable public inspection Le- the city and county environmental protection admi- ćevica_enough information. Specifi cally, represen- nistration, responsible for conducting public debates, tatives of non-governmental organizations and civil and representatives of regional planning (city and society included in the proceedings (civil initiatives county) and representatives of the DEVELOPERS do and associations) are completely positive that the not represent the views of the majority and believe public was not adequately informed during the pu- that the public was adequately informed during the blic debates in the process of developing a regional public debates in the process of developing a regio- plan of Split-Dalmatia County for the planned Waste nal plan of the Split-Dalmatia county for the planned Management Center in Lećevica. Most of the repre- Waste Management Center in Lećevica. Quantitative sentatives of the target groups CIVIL INITIATIVES, analysis of the frequency of variables public inspec- POLITICAL PARTIES, SCIENTISTS / JOURNA- tion Lećevica_enough information toward the sector LISTS, STUDY MAKERS and the MINISTRY OF group can be seen in Table 3. Table 3 Frequency of the variable public inspection Lećevica _enough information according to the sector group, n = 100

PUBLIC CIVIL SEC- ECONOMIC Responses Total SECTOR TOR SECTOR 0 15261657 11023 22441240 total 40 30 30 100

Legend: 0 – no; 1 –I don’t know, I’m not sure; 2 – yes. Public sector – MIN. OF THE ENVIRONMENT/COMMITTEE, CITY, COUNTY, SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS; Civil sector – ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC INITIATIVES, POLITICAL PARTIES; Economic sector – STUDY MAKERS, DEVELOPER S, ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS. 60% of public sector representatives claimed tor groups regarding the awareness and attitudes that the public was adequately informed during to the extent the public debate provided enough the public debates in the process of developing a information to the general public in the process regional plan of the Split-Dalmatia County for the of adoption of spatial plans for the planned Waste planned Waste Management Center in Lećevica, Management Center in Lećevica and on the future while 97% representatives of the civil sector and use of space and planned projects. 53% of the economic sector believed that the pu- 4. CONCLUSION blic was not adequately informed during the pu- blic debates in the process of developing a regional Th e research results show how divided the su- plan of the Split-Dalmatia county for the planned bjects are. In total, around 57% of subjects believe Waste Management Center in Lećevica. that the public was not adequately informed during Based on the results of empirical research, the public debates in the process of developing a the general hypothesis (HG) has been amended, regional plan of the Split-Dalmatia County for the which reads as follows: there are signifi cant diff e- planned Waste Management Center in Lećevica, rences between the entities in the target and sec- while 40% of respondents believe that such infor- 63 M. Pletikosić1, M. Tafra-Vlahović

mation was suffi cient to act in accordance with be publicly available together with the documen- regulations, but that the public majority showed tation, with a clear agenda for the implementation disinterest and decided to join in late. Th e total of and evaluation of the objectives in the process of 60% of public sector representatives point out that informing and participation of the general public the public was adequately informed during the and the interested public. Th e responsibility for public debates in the process of developing a regi- communication activities should be delegated to onal plan of Split-Dalmatia County for the planned the public administration of the local community, Waste Management Center in Lećevica, while 97% and defi nitely not the economic sector, which has representatives of the civil sector and 53% of the large interests related to the development projects economic sector hold an opposite opinion. Th e re- that are being adopted. Th e civil sector should help sults pointed out the signifi cant defi ciencies in the the public and business sectors in addressing these adoption of spatial planning, and clearly showed problems with greater involvement in sensitizing direct/indirect pressure from the politicians, quiet the public to better understand the development of administrative support or obstruction of the com- programs that are of interest to the local commu- petent administration in the process, but also the nity. Due to the lack of transparency in the proce- eff ect of the changing political views, depending dures of adopting spatial plans, the public expresses on the position of the ruling party and the oppo- distrust in the decision makers and their motives. sition at the state and local level. Because of these Th e local community oft en does not have suffi cient problems, it is necessary to make additional eff orts expert capacity to improve information and par- in informing the general public and the public par- ticipation of the public in procedures of adopting ticipation during the process of adopting regional spatial plans, for which outsourcing can be used or plans, in order to build trust among all stakehol- volunteers/animators can be hired from the ranks ders and reduce mistrust, which is oft en, because of students and the civil sector. Th eir task should be of the present issues, quite justifi ed. In this sense, to work on the projects and planning to raise pu- it is necessary, in the process of creating the spatial blic awareness on the importance of participation planning documentation by the local communiti- in making decisions on regional plans, about which es to also create a communication plan of how the the public should be informed more regularly. public will be informed and participate, which will 5. REFERENCES 1. Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. (ur.) (2009). Otkrivanje odnosa s javnošću. Zagreb: HUOJ. 2. Tafra-Vlahović, M. (2011). Upravljanje krizom: procjene, planovi, komunikacija. Zaprešić: Visoka škola za poslova- nje i upravljanje s pravom javnosti Baltazar Adam Krčelić: 161-171. 3. Toffl er, A. (1984). Th e Th ird Wave. New York. Toronto. London. Sydney. Auckland: Bantham. 4. Cifrić I. (2009). Kultura i okoliš. Zaprešić: Visoka škola za poslovanje i upravljanje s pravom javnosti Baltazar Adam Krčelić: 53-56. 5. Popcorn, F. (1991). Th e Popcorn Report: Faith Popcorn on the Future of Your Company, Your World, Your Life. New York: Doubleday Currency NY: 35-37. 7. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H. and Broom, G. M. (2000). Eff ective Public Relations. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 8. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (ed.) (2007). Th e SAGE Handbook of Grounded Th eory. London: Th ousand Oaks. New Delhi. Singapore: Sage Publications. 9. Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering Chronic Illness: Using Grounded Th eory. Soc. Sci. Med. 30, (11), 1161-1172. 10. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. 3rd ed. Lon- don: Th ousand Oaks. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

64 CRISIS PLANNING AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

11. Pletikosić, M. (2012). Public attitudes towards the use of alternative fuel in cement industry. (Master thesis). Zadar: University of Zadar. 12. Petz, B., Kolesarić, V. and Ivanec, D. Petz (2012). Statistics: basic statistical methods for non mathematicians. Jastre- barsko: Naklada Slap.

PLANIRANJE ZA KRIZU I JAVNOST U ZAŠTITI OKOLIŠA Sažetak Informiranje i sudjelovanje javnosti u donošenju odluka u zaštiti okoliša, kao važan dio procesa uključivanja dionika, nerijetko isključuje planiranje za krizu. U postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš često se pojavljuje organizacijska kriza koja uključuje tri ili četiri organizacije u postupku koje čine: investitor ili podnositelj zahtjeva, nadležni županijski ured ili ministarstvo koje vodi postupak procjene utjecaja planiranog zahvata na okoliš, policijske uprave koje kontroliraju prosvjede te pravosuđe kao rezultat prava javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti Arhuškom konvencijom. Prvi znakovi moguće krize pojavljuju se godinu-dvije prije no što kriza postane prijetnja organizaciji ili njenim partnerima, a čine ju pojedinačni ili manji incidenti koje su organizacije ignorirale i procijenile da nemaju veći značaj za postizanje konačnog cilja. Rezultat tako nastalih neočekivanih kriza su velika nesigurnost i rastući rizici u kojima organizacije ne mogu prepoznati sve uzroke ili konačne moguće posljedice, uloženi napori ne postižu efekte, a prijetnja ugrožavanja i postizanja cilj se povećava. U ovome su radu analizirane moguće razlike u informira- nju i sudjelovanju javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti između javnih rasprava u donošenju odluka o prostornim planovima i javnih rasprava u donošenju odluka o studijama utjecaja na okoliš u slučaju Regionalnog centra za gospodarenje otpadom Lećevica u Splitsko-dalmatinskoj županiji.Metode prikupljanja empirijskog materijala su problemski usmjeren, dubinski intervju i sudje- lujuće promatranje. U analizi empirijskog materijala korištena je utemeljena teorija s inicijalnim aksijalnim i selektivnim kodi- ranjem. Za izračunavanje učestalosti te apsolutne i relativne kumulativne vrijednosti svakog kodiranog odgovora korištena je deskriptivna statistika. Rezultati istraživanja pokazali su istaknute nedostatke u donošenju dokumenata prostornog planiranja, a do izražaja dolaze direktni/indirektni pritisci političara, tiha administrativna podrška ili opstrukcija nadležnih upravnih tijela u postupku, ali i promjene političkih stavova, ovisno o položaju vladajućih i opozicije na državnoj i lokalnoj razini. Ključne riječi: informiranje i sudjelovanje javnosti, planiranje za krizu, gospodarenje otpadom.

65 66