Public participation in Sweden is something that has grown fourth after the democratisation of the planning process in urban and regional planning. The goal was to strengthen the sustainability of the projects while inviting the concerned to directly influence and discuss the needs and solutions that arise during exploitation. Three areas are examined to create an understanding of how public participation looks like today. The representations of these areas are Boverket and SKL for the public sector, Arkus for the research community and PLAN for the professional forums. There is a general consensus on what public participation is today as well as what problems it faces, with some differing aspects. An imbalance in representation of different social groups where some create a stronger voice and influence than others affect the decision-making, based on lacking resources, apathy concerning the subject or project in question or even existing prejudice. This, in combination with what is considered to be insufficient information and difficult communication in general, leads to misunderstandings and a more arduous planning process. Some point to that the legislature needs additional streamlining and centralisation of decision-making structure while others point to greater dialogue outside existing public hearings with a permanent and continuously updated platform outside the legislature. Modernisation of the general means and technology used in the dialogue seem like the next step and further research should be made on this to determine its effect on public participation and its development. / Medborgardeltagande i Sverige är något som kommit till efter demokratisering av planeringsprocessen i samhällsbyggnadssektorn. Målet var att stärka hållbarheten hos projekten medan man samtidigt bjöd in de berörda att direkt påverka och resonera kring behov och lösningar som uppstår vid exploateringen. För att ta reda på hur läget ser ut idag för medborgardeltagande så undersöks tre olika forum för planerare. De forum som utgås från är dels Boverket och SKL för den offentliga sektorn, dels Arkus som forskning samt PLAN som debatt och professionell plattform. Samtliga undersökta källor visar generellt konsensus om vad medborgardeltagande är i dagsläget samt dess problem, med några skillnader i synpunkter. Det råder obalans i representationen för olika sociala grupper där vissa har en betydligt starkare röst i påverkan av beslut, på grund av bland annat bristande resurser, viss apati angående ämnet eller projektet i fråga samt existerande fördomar. Detta, i kombination med vad som anses vara bristande kommunikation och information i överlag, leder till missförstånd och i allmänhet en mödosammare planeringsprocess. Vissa pekar på att lagstiftningen behöver effektiviseras och centralisera beslutsorganen mer medan andra pekar på större dialog utöver existerande samråd med en ständigt pågående och uppdaterande plattform utanför lagstiftningen. Modernisering av medlen och tekniken som används i dialogen verkar vara nästa steg i utveckling och vidare forskning bör göras för att fastställa dess effekt på medborgardeltagandet och dess vidare utveckling.

Justice research in the field of social psychology has focused primarily on situations involving legal proceedings, dispute resolution, and hierarchal relationships within organizations. This study extends the work of social psychologist Tom Tyler and others to a planning context by demonstrating that participants in a planning process use group-value criteria in addition to control over decisions and decision making processes and the favorability of outcomes to define reactions to their experiences. While certain aspects of the case study from which survey interviews were conducted limited the ability to replicate specific results of the 1989 Tyler study used as a model for this analysis, the major suppositions were confirmed. The results indicate that the group-value issues of standing, trust, and neutrality explain more variance in participant judgments of procedural justice, distributive justice, affect toward officials and fairness of officials than do control or outcome favorability. The results also demonstrate the dominance of standing and trust over all other concerns in participant assessments of procedural and distributive justice and the fairness of officials.

This dissertation addresses three questions about administrative rulemaking: • Do comments submitted on proposed rules vary in identifiable ways? • Do these differences directly relate to the likelihood that recommendations will be associated with changes to regulations? • Can these characteristics be incorporated into a model that accurately predicts whether or not suggestions will coincide with changes to administrative rules? Using data collected from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Regulatory Town Hall, I analyze 2,534 comments that address 67 regulations proposed by state agencies during an 11-year period. I find that submissions do differ in meaningful ways. I also find statistically significant evidence that those differences are related to the probability that a requested change coincides with a subsequent modification to a rule. The principal result of this research is a model that predicts with a high degree of accuracy the outcome of participants' recommendations to alter proposed regulations. I also demonstrate the implications of these results and how failure to account for these differences undermines the legitimacy of conclusions that can be drawn from studies of notice-and-comment rulemaking. The primary contribution of this dissertation is methodological, but the empirical evidence presented here also raises questions about the value of citizen participation in notice-and-comment rulemaking in its current form. As a result, it challenges contentions that participation contributes to the democratic legitimacy of bureaucracy, serves as a safeguard against the influences of organized interests, or improves the substantive quality of administrative decisions. / Ph. D.

The primary purposes of the study are to explain the essentials of citizen participation and see how the community has reacted to an actual example of citizen participation, the North Pickering Public Participation Program. Citizen participation emerges as a consequence of both the planners' and the people's consciousness. It means different things to different people, but few cases represent true participation. In the study, an implicit comparison is made between an officially initiated public participation process and a community-preferred one. Urbanization and suburbanization have brought about intense growth in the existing urban centres and tremendous loss of agricultural land in Southern Ontario. The choice of North Pickering as the site for a new town is claimed to be an answer to the growth objective of decentralization and deconcentration. Its planning process has proceeded with a large-scale citizen participation program. "Information and consultation" are the official strategies from which "decision-making is to be a shared one". Most people are not happy with the participation process for they have not been truly consulted and their opinions have not been considered, although official sources say the final plan for North Pickering reflects public inputs. The community prefers a process in which they are given some power over the bargaining process.It is suggested that the North Pickering Participation Process represents some degree of tokenism. The officials have the intent, but not the proper way, of involving the people. Thus frustrations arise on both sides. This probably explains why a similar process will not go with the planning of Townsend, another new town to be built in Southen1 Ontario. Though not satisfactory, citizen participation in North Pickering is a worthwhile experience. It should be a start rather than an end in itself. / Thesis / Bachelor of Arts (BA)

It is generally recognised that the primary role of the decentralise local governance is to establish closer relationship between rural communities and the governing authorities in local development. In Pakistan, the system of local governments has always been introduced by the non-democratic forces. The decentralised governments have often been discontinued by the civilian governments of Pakistan. This study has sought to examine the role of the decentralised local governance in initiating the local community participation in local development in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. This thesis responds the questions about the initiatives taken by the local government authorities and the genuine local community participation in local community development programs. It further explores the main barriers to local public participation in the local policy making and implementation in Sindh. The findings suggest that the challenges to participation have been ever increasing. The military establishment’s hold on the central state policies has weakened the public empowering national laws. Furthermore, the local government’s role to initiate meaningful local community involvement in development projects of the decentralised local governance has been engrossed by the hold of feudal lords, corruption, favouritism, and the attitude of indifference on the part of provincial and national governments. Thus, it is argued that, in such dominant military state and feudal lords’ system, there is no positive link between the local government reforms and the democratic participation in the local decision-making. Based on these findings, a realistic model for participation is introduced and relevant implications are considered.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

There is a growing body of literature about public participation in health-system priority setting in different contexts and levels of governance, however, explicit focus on vulnerable populations’ participation is lacking. This dissertation incorporated a mix of methodological approaches to address this gap. First, a scoping review was used to synthesize the literature on priority-setting frameworks to understand whether and how applications of the frameworks involve the public and vulnerable populations in different contexts. Second, an interpretive description study was used to examine stakeholder participation at the district level in a low-income country, Uganda. Third, a qualitative description study design was used to qualitatively assess vulnerable women’s participation in health-system priority setting within a district in Uganda, from the perspectives of both vulnerable women and decision-makers. The research chapters complement and build on one another to make substantive, methodological, and theoretical contributions. Specifically, insights gained from the scoping review demonstrate that while priority-setting frameworks may require participation of all stakeholders, in practice certain stakeholder groups, namely the public and especially vulnerable populations, are not consistently integrated into priority-setting processes. The empirical research provides a rich understanding of the roles of different stakeholders in the priority-setting process and provides explanations about why vulnerable women, as a subset of the public, are not participating. This adds to the evidence base that policy-makers can access to guide future attempts to engage publics in health-system priority setting. These studies collectively contribute to a wider understanding of public’s and vulnerable populations’ participation in health-system priority setting in low-income contexts where health disparities are pronounced, and health resources are especially scarce. Policy-makers should aim to support vulnerable populations’ participation in health-system priority setting. Clear articulation of which vulnerable populations should participate and how they should participate can facilitate priority-setting processes. Co-developing participatory methods, frameworks, and guides with vulnerable populations can reinforce their participation and lead to mechanisms of participation that are more responsive to their needs. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Public participation is often considered a cornerstone of fair and legitimate priority setting. Yet, little is known about whether and how the participation of vulnerable populations is operationalized in the field of health-system priority setting. An in-depth understanding of who participates and who does not, and how participation is enabled and/or hindered is essential to ensure that policy-makers can support participation. This dissertation addresses gaps in knowledge through: 1) a literature synthesis examining the operationalization of stakeholder participation within priority-setting frameworks, with specific attention to the publics’ and vulnerable populations’ participation, in cases where the frameworks have been applied to health-system priority setting; 2) supportive qualitative evidence on the roles, leverages, and challenges of different stakeholders’ participation in district-level health-system priority setting in Uganda; and 3) examining vulnerable women’s participation within one Ugandan district, specifically outlining barriers to their participation, and solutions to address these barriers and support vulnerable women’s participation in health-system priority setting. Collectively these studies can inform policy-making and development of public participation strategies that specifically target vulnerable populations for participation in health-system priority setting.

Truly unique and innovative solutions are needed to resolve today's complex and controversial environmental issues (e.g., biodiversity loss, global warming, cultural evolution, etc.). In response to these concerns, a variety of applied science programs have emerged to help people make better decisions about the environment. Each of these programs (e.g., conservation biology, restoration ecology, sustainable forestry, environmental toxicology, and others) produces specialized knowledge that is used to achieve specific social and environmental goals. For example, the peer-reviewed, scientific analyses published in Conservation Biology are most likely concerned with the goal of preserving biological diversity, whereas the equally scientific and respected analyses published in Forest Science are most likely concerned with the goal of sustaining timber yields. Likewise, studies in environmental toxicology investigate risks to human health by environmental pollutants, while stud! ies in ecological restoration serve to maximize the integrity of natural systems. Unfortunately, these diverse forms of knowledge offer multiple and often conflicting ways of thinking about the environment. Public ecology is a response to this dilemma. The primary goal of public ecology is construct common ground between people's diverse beliefs and values for the environment. Toward this end, public ecology is an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach to environmental science and politics. Public ecology integrates perspectives from the social and natural sciences, the humanities, and public understandings of the environment. Public ecology is not only a cross-cultural and comparative form of environmental studies, it is also a citizen science that encourages all concerned stakeholders to participate with research specialists, technical experts, and professional decision-makers in developing creative solutions to persistent environmental problems. / Ph. D.