This chapter reconstructs the perspectives of actors in the two planning processes. In response to the research question, my aim is to describe actors’ perspectives on the planning processes in which they were involved, and towards environmental planning and decision-making issues in general. In this chapter I consider the influence of those perspectives on the integration of citizens’ agendas. Data on the three perspectives presented here are derived from Q-method surveys, factor analysis and interviews, as described in Chapter Three. Each perspective is a reconstruction of actors’ perspectives on the issue under study. This chapter is not a critique of these perspectives; rather, it describes how actors see themselves and other actors, including their perceptions of matters such as what roles and responsibilities actors should have; what processes should be followed; and what counts as valid knowledge. A critical assessment of those perspectives and their influence on the integration of citizens’ agendas is undertaken in Chapter Six.
The decision to focus on actors’ perspectives followed the Chapter Two review of what is known about the research problem, where it became clear that actors’ perspectives are far less well understood than their agendas and institutional practices. At points, this discussion touches on those latter aspects, and makes use of democratic theoretical concepts that will be an important part of the discussion in Chapter Six.
Analysis of statistical and qualitative data from Q-sorts and interviews produced three factors, which the twenty-four respondents cluster around. The three factors are:
Factor One: Subjective Compromisers (F1) Factor Two: Objective Competitors (F2) Factor Three: Neutral Executives (F3)
The titles serve as short identifiers for the three factors and were chosen to represent key elements of each group of actors’ epistemological and procedural dimensions of their perspectives. For example, “Subjective Compromisers" regard subjective forms of knowledge as epistemologically important and are compromise-seeking in their procedural expectations of planning and decision-making.
The analysis and presentation of factors was described in detail in Chapter Three’s section on ‘Factor interpretation’. In this chapter the three factors are described separately. Each factor description begins with a brief overview, including respondents’ demographic characteristics and their agendas. This is followed by a description of the common perspectives shared by this group of actors. The important themes within each perspective are described. These themes are identified by reflection on the intent of a series of statements and respondents’ scoring of those statements, and on respondents’ post-sort interview comments. For each theme I present a table comprising the relevant statements and scores and an accompanying description. Some statements appear in more than one table because they address more than one theme (a full set of the Q-statements is reproduced in Table 1 below). Each description also includes observations about actors’ substantive agendas and relevant contextual information from the two wastewater processes.
Each factor description weaves together general and context-specific elements. First, I provide a description of each theme within a perspectives. These perspectives have inferential value in that they are likely to be present in wider populations and to apply to planning and decision-making in other contexts. This description is made without reference to particular respondents or the structural location of the planning processes. This decontextualisation is intended to emphasise the general nature of the factor.
Second, each factor is presented as a perspective towards the two wastewater planning processes. This context-specific interpretation is supported by use of interviews and other data from the particular settings, and contributes to my assessment of those planning processes. Contextual data subsequently assist in interpreting the factors and framing general theoretical propositions for further research. Demographic data are discussed where they are relevant to the factors. For example, I draw conclusions about respondents’ professional roles, ethnicity and geographic location where they may prove causally significant in terms of influencing those actors’ perspectives. In this chapter, respondents are referred to as “clustering around” or “loading on” or “identifying with” a factor or perspective. This usage indicates that the factor is a composite perspective standing apart from an individual’s structural location and not correspond to any single respondent’s perspective24.
24
The exception to the composite nature of factors would be where a single respondent’s Q-sort formed a factor on its own, which was identified as theoretically significant despite lacking statistical significance, for example, a single important individual (e.g. the prime minister) whose Q-sort might be seen as significant.
Each factor also has one or more “mixed loadings”. This indicated that some actors had viewpoints that reflect more than one factor and some had statistically significant associations with more than one factor. The analysis of data in this chapter and the discussion in subsequent chapters takes account of mixed loadings. For example, a mixed loading may suggest some commonalities between two factors, or it may indicate that some actors will identify with more than on perspective given particular structural circumstances (e.g. the presence or absence of a more integrative process).
The perspectives presented here are those present among actors involved in the two wastewater planning processes. Were the study to be replicated elsewhere, the same perspectives might be present, or other modified combinations of these perspectives might be revealed. Additional, entirely different perspectives might also be revealed. Regardless of its particular formation, each perspective must offer a meaningful explanation for actors’ overall points of view, taking account of all of the relevant data.
Table 1: Full set of Q-statements and factor responses
No. Statement F1 F2 F3
1 Those who dispute the scientific evidence are now few and far between.
-3 1 1
2 The continued resistance to the proposal is from a minority of the population who are radicals and extremists.
-4 -4 -2
3 Technical, financial and legal experts are able to present their viewpoints as ‘objective’ factual evidence that cannot be challenged, while using it in support of a particular preferred outcome.
1 1 -2
4 We should not be involving citizens directly in decision making unless they are technically well-informed.
-2 -4 -3
5 Expert bodies or individuals are best suited to determine how, where and under what circumstances resources should be allocated and used.
-3 -2 -1
6 There was a bias in the consultation towards the more literate members of the public, and towards those who felt comfortable making a written submission.
1 2 -3
7 It is quite important to present a reasonably well considered opinion on the wastewater issue. It is going to be criticised, so it has to be well thought out.
4 4 2
8 Too much emphasis was being put on consultants pummelling the Council into submission and not enough on what the public wanted.
-2 0 -4
9 Environmental groups have taken an idealistic point of view. Affordability has not been high on their agenda.
10 Even if the water being discharged into the river were technically pure, the discharge would still not be totally acceptable.
3 -2 1
11 While economic growth has positive benefits for the community, clearly conservation has not been afforded the value it should have.
3 2 0
12 The main driving forces behind the decision on the final scheme are price and technical complexity.
0 4 -2
13 Ethical values and norms should be accorded equal standing to economics as a basis for environmental policy making.
2 0 1
14 Involvement in the consultation process does make you rethink your underlying values. You are forced to see outside your own vision.
3 -1 4
15 Sometimes people’s intuition is more important than a lot of technical know-how on issues.
1 0 0
16 A key challenge is to seek strategies that respect both Māori and European traditions in interpreting, understanding and protecting the natural world.
4 0 3
17 The cultural and spiritual expectations of Pakeha are not written into the Resource Management Act and are therefore totally ignored.
-2 1 -3
18 There is a general acceptance amongst the Council that personal subjective values are as important as the financial and technical imperatives, or more so.
-3 -2 0
19 Policy decisions are never objective – rather, they will always reflect the cultural, social, institutional and economic context in which they arise.
2 2 2
20 Most people realise that resource consents are dictated by powers outside their control.
0 -1 -1
21 Consensus almost always means that the values of dominant majorities have marginalised the concerns of minorities.
0 2 0
22 Participants in wastewater planning who expressed a different point of view to the majority one were sometimes treated as if that were divisive or working against an agreement.
0 3 -2
23 I am suspicious of the role that money can play in corrupting decision making processes.
0 2 -3
24 The revised wastewater scheme was a case of the Council not liking the outcome of consultation and trying to change it.
-1 1 -4
25 The Council officers have been pushing a particular agenda. 0 0 -4 26 Participants should leave behind their particular experiences
and points of difference in order to aim for unity and a common good.
27 You have to moderate your point of view to reach an agreement, and that is a worthwhile process.
2 -2 2
28 All parties with a clear interest in the issue needed to be included in the process.
4 3 4
29 There has been a considerable shift in public opinion since the wastewater scheme’s early days, as a result of increased understanding of the issues and of what the Council is doing.
2 -2 3
30 Iwi are very patient. Provided they trust and believe that the Council are moving in the right direction and are going to get there, they are fairly happy.
-1 0 4
31 People do not necessarily need to agree with the outcome, they only need to consent to it.
-1 -2 2
32 The more that a group felt that they were heard, the more they were likely to think that they were having an influence on the decision.
1 2 3
33 Grass roots community participation improves decision- making processes and ensures new voices are heard.
2 1 3
34 The achievement of workable solutions to concrete problems is more important than the presentation of individual views and preferences.
-1 -2 -1
35 The level of opposition to the proposal is very low indeed, and that reflects the merits of the scheme.
0 -3 2
36 One positive result of this process is a stronger relationship with the Council.
1 -2 2
37 The resource consent applications are not only the product of an extensive consultative process, but also reflect total community consensus.
-3 -3 -1
38 The larger the human economy becomes, the more nature suffers.
2 4 0
39 Sewage volumes should be reduced by reducing the community’s use of water.
3 3 -2
40 Technology and chemicals pose relatively low risks and these risks are controllable through technology.
-2 -3 0
41 There is no point wasting money by setting standards that are better than the bathing standards required.
-4 -4 -1
42 Science, not emotional or political reactions, must serve as the foundation for policy decisions.
-4 3 0
43 Cost-benefit analysis offers policy makers a way to assess the most objective and efficient means to respond to this challenge.
Factor One: Subjective Compromisers
Subjective Compromisers have a perspective on procedural issues that favours engagement with other actors in planning and decision-making. They seek compromises that satisfy their own agendas while maintaining relationships between actors. Compromise is seen as possible when all actors have sufficient understanding and acceptance of other actors’ agendas, and of the constraints and opportunities present. Subjective Compromisers’ agendas typically emphasise subjective issues such as spiritual, cultural and aesthetic interests. Their perspectives and agendas are explicitly self-referential and coloured by their own experiences and values. Subjective Compromisers want other actors to treat all subjective agendas as legitimate elements to be taken into account in planning and decision-making, but they are aware that those agendas perceived as objective and factual are more likely to be privileged.
Ten respondents loaded significantly25 on the Subjective Compromisers factor. Eight were citizens involved in the two planning processes. One was a council officer and one was a councillor – both from the Palmerston North City Council. All ten expressed significant reservations about the final decisions in the two planning processes, yet all eight citizens reported very positively on their experiences of involvement in the process. This positive assessment contrasted strongly with the negative experiences of the remaining citizens in the study, all of whom loaded significantly on Factor Two. The positive assessment of the process could be partly explained by their perspectives, but also by an examination of respondents’ demographic characteristics and their experiences in the two processes.
The experiences of actors loading on the Subjective Compromisers factor demonstrates that, for many actors, participation in a deliberative process is critical for their sense of procedural legitimacy. Seven citizens were members of formal stakeholder groups appointed by the two councils for their wastewater planning processes. The eighth citizen was a member of a local community board26. In contrast, none of the citizens on other factors were members of formal groups such as these. The council officer and councillor loading on this factor were both very enthusiastic about the importance of public participation, and reflected quite mixed feelings about council decision-making processes. All ten respondents spoke positively of the
25
See Chapter Three for an explanation of statistical significance in the loadings of respondents on factors.
26
Community Boards have powers and functions delegated to them by their councils. They act as a link between councils and communities. Members comprise councillors and citizens from that community.
opportunities afforded citizens by formal involvement, including the close contact with councillors and officers, and the opportunities to gain an understanding of issues and to influence outcomes. These positive experiences clearly contributed to their subsequent support for the final resource consent applications, despite all ten respondents maintaining strong reservations about the final schemes.
Additionally, five of the ten respondents were Māori, whereas there were no Māori respondents on Factor Two and only two on Factor Three (both also loading on the Subjective Compromisers factor). Four of the five were citizens acting as iwi representatives in the planning processes, while the fifth was a Māori liaison officer responsible for council relations with iwi. Although a council officer, he clearly identified very closely with Māori and iwi concerns. Māori respondents were all involved in separate iwi consultation, undertaken by both councils concurrently with wider public consultation. This separate consultation afforded Māori actors a higher level of contact with council actors, and greater opportunities to pursue their specific agendas than were afforded most citizens. Both councils had attempted to address culturally specific iwi agendas through the addition of mitigating measures, such as Palmerston North’s wetlands and rock passage. As a result of this particular attention, Māori respondents reported positively on the processes and had offered formal support for the final schemes, despite continuing to favour land-based schemes. Their positive experiences of participation had partly mitigated these actors’ disappointment at the substantive outcome. This compromise-seeking approach reflects the wider New Zealand evidence, in Chapter Two, that iwi actors often value ongoing engagement and relationships even where they are unable to gain significant success for their agendas.
An explicitly subjective epistemological dimension
Subjective Compromisers have an epistemological dimension to their perspective that gives primacy to intangible, non-scientific values and preferences such as cultural, spiritual and ethical concerns. Their agendas are likely to reflect this perspective rather than to seek to appear more objective or scientific. In the case of respondents on this factor, their agendas focussed on issues such as the spiritual and aesthetic value of land and water, limiting economic growth and resource use, and the long-term guardianship of the environment.
For Subjective Compromisers, these subjective values and preferences are often the most important elements of their agendas, and are seen as entirely legitimate inputs to
planning and decision-making. Actors who clustered on the Subjective Compromisers factor were markedly less likely to muster technical arguments in support of their agendas, and less likely to present themselves as experts outside their areas of lay knowledge.
Subjective Compromisers acknowledge a wide range of other agendas and types of knowledge as legitimate inputs. They recognise that decision-makers and other actors often privilege knowledge supported by technical evidence, because it is seen as being more valid and relevant to problems defined primarily in technical terms, for example, wastewater issues. They also recognise that subjective agendas are often treated by actors with a positivist perspective as secondary issues because they are seen as lacking objectivity and a factual basis. Nevertheless, Subjective Compromisers wish to express their subjective agendas without them being marginalised or put aside.
Below is the first set of statements reflecting one theme of the Subjective Compromisers factor’s perspective. Each set of statements is accompanied by a description of that theme, usually incorporating quotes from post-sort interviews. The score given to each statement for the relevant factor is in bold.
Table 2: An environmental conservationist agenda F1 F2 F3 11 While economic growth has positive benefits for the
community, clearly conservation has not been afforded the value it should have.
3 2 0
38 The larger the human economy becomes, the more nature suffers.
2 4 0
39 Sewage volumes should be reduced by reducing the community’s use of water.
3 3 -2
40 Technology and chemicals pose relatively low risks and these risks are controllable through technology.
-2 -3 0
41 There is no point wasting money by setting standards that are better than the bathing standards required.
-4 -4 -1
Subjective Compromisers (F1) and Objective Competitors (F2) share an environmental conservationist agenda of concerns about the effects of wastewater discharge on the natural environment. Both factors gave high scores to statements on protecting the natural environment by reducing pollution and minimising its effects on human and animal populations. Both disagree with technical and financial responses, such as statements 40 and 41, which focus on mitigating the effects of pollution rather than removing it.
Table 3: Spiritual and cultural values are legitimate inputs F1 F2 F3 1 Those who dispute the scientific evidence are now few and
far between.
-3 1 1
10 Even if the water being discharged into the river were technically pure, the discharge would still not be totally acceptable.
3 -2 1
16 A key challenge is to seek strategies that respect both Māori and European traditions in interpreting, understanding and protecting the natural world.
4 0 3
Subjective Compromisers differ from other factors in highly valuing non-scientific, spiritual and cultural views on the environment. As their scores show, these views are seen as legitimate inputs that complement or enhance the science (statement 10), or