public awareness of decision-making in physical planning ... · different meanings (kunczik and...
TRANSCRIPT
729
Public Awareness of Decision-Making in Physical Planning
Merica Pletikosić
CEMEX Hrvatska d. d., Kaštel Sućurac, Croatia
Abstract This paper presents the results of empirical research on public awareness of the importance of
adopting spatial plans and related procedures. Public participation in physical planning
constitutes a mechanism introduced in order to facilitate public involvement in the decision-
making processes for defining the intended purposes of select areas. However, it is also a means
for achieving certain greater social goals, with the various interests of all the different users of
the intended space providing a political character as well. Depending on how the public debate
is handled, as well as on the activities undertaken in order to inform and involve the concerned
parties, the spatial plan can either be improved with new quality content or deformed to absurd
levels. In order to guarantee the public’s legal right to having their opinion considered in the
process of adopting a spatial plan, the public has to be made aware and properly informed about
the relevant issues and suggested proposals. The qualitative study was carried out using a
purposive sample and the methods of in-depth interview and participant observation. The
grounded theory method was used in the analysis of the empirical material and the
quantification of the qualitatively processed coded material was calculated using the computer
package Statistica ver 11.00. The research determined the level of awareness of the target
groups and group sectors about the importance of adopting spatial plans. The majority of the
respondents expressed the view that the public review into the process of adoption of spatial
plans does not provide enough information on the future use of the space and the intended plans.
They also believe that the public is not fully informed about the procedure and importance of
adopting spatial plans. A smaller number of respondents believe that the public has been
properly informed, but lacks the necessary concern to perceive the importance of participating in
the creation and adoption of a spatial plan.
Key words: Decision-making, Physical planning, Public involvement and awareness
Track: Governance
Word count: 5.425
1. Introduction
Public participation in physical planning constitutes a mechanism introduced in order to facilitate
public involvement in the decision-making processes for defining the intended purposes of select
areas. However, it is also a means for achieving certain greater social goals, with the various
interests of all the different users of the intended space providing a political character as well. In
order to guarantee the public’s legal right to having their opinion considered in the process of
adopting a spatial plan, the public has to be made aware and properly informed about the
730
relevant issues and suggested proposals. Physical planning is the first step in the realisation of
any project, but also the precondition for launching an environmental impact study. In the last
few decades, environmental impact assessment has asserted itself as one of the central activities
in licensing procedures for industrial, energy, agricultural, infrastructural and all other larger
projects. The main assessment document, the environmental impact study, has become the
central element of project preparation as it is the only document that unites and coordinates the
ideas, opinions and interests of all concerned parties from the public, economic and civil sector.
Increased awareness of the need to involve the public in the decision-making process results in
better legislation in this area. Each new regulation allows greater rights for the public to
participate, thus causing the importance of public participation in the procedures of
environmental impact assessment to constantly grow. With a growing awareness of their right to
participate in decision-making, the public and its risk perception greatly affect environmental
protection policy. Today, the public is concerned more than ever with the existence of problems
associated with environmental protection, while the problem of risk perception in environmental
protection in the public can be solved only by better communication of all stakeholders (Malbaša
and Jelavić, 2013). By European standards, the interested public is consulted in the conceptual
phase of the project, as well as continuously throughout the procedure. European rules provide
for early public participation in environmental impact assessment. The goal is early involvement,
as well as continuous public participation in the process, creating the preconditions that allow the
public to significantly affect the outcome of the environmental impact assessment (Cox, 2013).
This is governed by various regulations, which have experienced several amendments from
design to date. Following the adoption of the Aarhus Convention, in 2003 the EU adopted the
Directive on Public Participation in the Process of Preparing Plans and Programs Relating to the
Environment and changes to the Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment in order to
harmonize them with the principles of the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention is based
on the concept of environmental democracy. Environmental democracy postulates that solving
environmental issues should include all those affected by a certain decision, not just the relevant
government bodies and economic sector (Ofak, 2009). In this process, all participants must be
given equal status in order to prevent the decision-makers from taking only one side’s arguments
into account. Availability of information is therefore a central part of environmental democracy
as it encourages concerned members of the public to become active participants in the decision-
making processes related to environmental issues. In this process, all participants must be treated
equally in order to prevent the decision-makers from taking only one side’s arguments into
account. Availability of information is therefore a central part of environmental democracy as it
encourages concerned members of the public to become active participants in the decision-
making processes related to environmental issues. The terms “public” and “concerned public”
are defined by the Convention itself: The term “public” stands for one or more natural or legal
persons and their associations, organisations and groups as defined by local law. The public can
be any person, regardless of their citizenship, residence or headquarters (for legal persons).
Discrimination on the basis of citizenship, nationality, residence or location of headquarters (for
legal persons) is forbidden. The term “concerned public” stands for segments of the public that
are or could be affected by environmental decision-making, or that are interested in the issue;
non-governmental organisations whose work is in the field of environmental protection and that
meet all the criteria set by local law will be considered members of the concerned public. This is
important for the realisation of the terms set out in the Convention and is related to public
participation in the decision-making process. The exact details of how the public is to be
731
informed and consulted, as well as its role in access to legal institutions, are defined individually
by every state (Ofak, 2009).
Never in its history has environmental protection been the subject of social concern and public
interest as much as it is today. Public opinion, as opposed to the individual, can have three
different meanings (Kunczik and Zipfel, 1998): opinion which is shared publicly, opinion
pertaining to the subject of public interest, opinion that, in the spirit of public opinion polls, is
shared by the public at large (large number of individuals), but having an opinion about
something doesn’t mean knowing anything about it. According to German scientists M. Kunczik
and A. Zipfel, public opinion is seen as a social process bound to specific objects, situations,
historical circumstances, and persons. Public opinion is created when a large number of people
have the same view on a subject, being aware of the overlap of their opinions. Kunczik M. and
A. Zipfel developed a structural functional model of the system of mass media, where they stated
creating the public as one of the functions of the media (Kunczik and Zipfel, 2000). There are a
number of different approaches organizations use to relate to the public opinion. Some of them
try to create their own atmosphere in the public opinion in an aggressive manner, while most
organizations see public opinion as an extremely important area, where daily acting and activity
adapting are required. The primary goal of public relations is the adaptation of conducting
business and communication of the organization to the characteristics and expectations of the
public and the public opinion, more so than manipulating public opinion. Systematic adjustment
to the public and public opinion implies a constant gathering of information among members of
the public who are important for the organization, and the submitting of the said information to
the management, which ultimately makes the final decision in the organization and manages it
(Jugo, 2012). The component of socially responsible behaviour of investors is important in the
processes of environmental impact studies. An environmental approach (Cutlip et al., 2000) is
the fundamental role the organizations have to play to adapt to changes in their environment. In
order to successfully operate and survive, all organizations must: accept public responsibility as
imposed by society, communicate with the various publics, get integrated into the community
because of which they exist in the first place. Alvin Toffler predicted that the technologically
fostered information age will result in a more dynamic environment (Toffler, 1984). Specific
changes and forces must be identified, investigated and understood in the context of the situation
and organizational environment. But at the same time, certain vague fundamental changes lead to
other changes, and have consequences for all organizations. Environmental ethics play a special
role as a means for learning about the foundation of ethical norms as a criterion of moral conduct
towards the living world and ecosystems in nature (Cifrić, 2009). Environmental issues dominate
the public debate and public policy, and it will be so in the future. Faith Popcorn calls this
movement S.O.S. (Save Our Society), and says that these are the issues of the generation that
will soon take power (Popcorn, 1991). Due to the problems of climate change and the destruction
of the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere, international action is required. Opinion polls
show that people believe the destruction of the environment is the most serious misdeed that a
corporation can commit. It is evident from a number of examples how environmental movement
with increasing speed and power influences the development of the economy and the decision-
making process.
Local government in the procedures of environmental impact assessment aims to, within the
government, create and maintain awareness of the need to communicate with different groups of
users and to provide a constant level of sensitivity to the needs and opinions of customers, based
on the principles of sustainable development. In general, a local government establishes an
732
understanding of the policies, processes, and activities of the government by informing users,
replying, where appropriate, to the criticisms of the authorities, establishing and maintaining
effective channels of communication with the public available to the authorities. The importance
of public participation in the procedures of environmental impact assessment is constantly
growing, and local government is under increasing pressure from the public, economic, and civil
sectors in the decision-making processes related to the assessment of environmental impact
studies. The goal of this study was to determine the level of awareness of and opinions on the
procedure and importance of physical planning among members of the general and concerned
publics in Croatia according to the level of awareness in target and sector groups. Based on the
defined goal, the following hypothesis was made:
(H1) There are significant differences in the level of awareness between entities in target and
sector groups when it comes to the importance of physical planning and the related procedure.
2. Methods
The qualitative study was carried out using a purposive sample and the methods of in-depth
interview and participant observation. A qualitative approach implies the learned use and
knowledge of a set of various empirical materials that describe the routine, problematic moments
and meanings in the lives of individuals. Researchers that employ a qualitative approach have
accordingly introduced a wide range of unrelated methods, in the hope that every new method
will help better understand the subject of the study (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). By integrating
simultaneous information in the data collection process, so that the results of one method can be
further processed and expanded with the results of another method, as well as the convergence of
qualitative and quantitative data, an all-encompassing view of the study problem can be gained
(Creswell, 2003). The inclusion of quantitative methods in a qualitative study has for its goal the
integration of differing research methodologies within a single study plan, thus allowing for a
more complete grasp in certain areas of the study and the binding of all study stages within a
methodological triangulation. In a qualitative study, this triangulation would imply the use of
several different methods at the same time in order to collect more accurate and complete
information on the subject (Mejovšek, 2013). The method of grounded theory was used in the
analysis of the empirical material. Three basic types of coding were applied: open or initial
coding, axial coding, selective coding. The initial coding included the first rearranging and
sorting of the data, noting similarities and forming response groups. Final analysis and
categorisation of the key concepts created the conceptual matrix with the content of qualitative
empirical material in the integrated theoretical framework (Holton, 2007; Charmaz, 1990).
Inductive and deductive methods were used on the data, as well as the method of analysis and
synthesis, comparison method, classification method, and the descriptive method (Silverman,
2006). The study was conducted in 2014. The sample was defined with 100 entities, 46 males
and 54 females. The average respondent age was 52.1 years. Respondents were divided into 10
sub-samples (target groups) which were qualitatively defined with 10 entities:
1. STUDY MAKERS – persons authorised by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature
Protection;
2. DEVELOPERS – investors;
3. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT/COMMITTEE – representatives of the governing body
conducting the process, and members of committees for study evaluation;
4. CITIES – representatives of the employees of the city administration for environmental
protection responsible for conducting public debates, and spatial planning representatives;
733
5. COUNTIES – representatives of the employees of the county administration for
environmental protection responsible for conducting public debates, and spatial planning
representatives;
6. ASSOCIATIONS – representatives of non-governmental environmental associations;
7. CIVIL INITIATIVES – representatives of NGOs and civil society who are involved in the
process, but are not environmentally oriented;
8. ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS – representatives of the Croatian Employers’ Association,
Croatian Chamber of Commerce, and other economic interest associations;
9. POLITICAL PARTIES – representatives of political structures which are included in the
process;
10. SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS – representatives of academic institutions and journalists who
are involved in the process.
Three new qualitatively defined control groups (clusters) were classified based on the above sub-
samples:
1. PUBLIC SECTOR – 40 respondents from target groups: MIN. OF
ENVIRONMENT/COMMITTEE, CITY, COUNTY, SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS;
2. CIVIL SECTOR – 30 respondents from target groups: ASSOCIATIONS, CIVIC
INITIATIVES, POLITICAL PARTIES;
3. ECONOMIC SECTOR – 30 respondents from target groups: STUDY MAKERS,
DEVELOPERS, ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS.
Research material consisted of two dependent (grouping) variables according to the criteria of
the target group, the criteria of the control group, and one independent variable. Respondents
were asked to state their opinion on the level of public awareness of the procedure and
importance of physical planning. A 1-3 scale was used to code the answers for the independent
variable. We calculated the descriptive parameters: frequency and cumulative relative values of
the responses in the whole sample, and in the predetermined focus and control groups.
Processing was carried out using the computer package Statistica Ver.11.00 (Holton, 2007).
3. Results
Quantitative processing of the variable entity matrix was based on the given responses
qualitatively defined by the question:
Do you believe that the public has been adequately informed about the procedure and
importance of physical planning?
The respondents stated their opinion on whether the public had been adequately informed about
the procedure and importance of physical planning. The answers were defined on three levels:
The first group was classified according to negative responses, and represents those entities who
answered:
No, the public has not been adequately informed about the procedure and importance of physical
planning, people choose to involve themselves only if motivated by the media or NGOs, the
public only shows interest if the situation can be related to a specific social issue. They fail to
understand that the issues are related to planning the future of their community. The public
should be more informed and educated about the issue. They are only interested if the procedure
has to do with their property, they want to know whether it is located in a construction zone or
green zone.
734
Quantitatively, these negative responses were coded as zero (0), for the upcoming statistical data
processing.
The second group claims that it does not have enough information, does not know or is not sure
how to respond, is undecided, and stands by the following positions:
I am not sure. Some people devote a lot of their time to this issue; some are not interested at all.
Depending on the interests in local politics, sometimes there is and sometimes there is not
enough information about the physical planning procedure and strategic documents for projects
and investments. I do not have enough information, but the level of awareness depends on local
and regional government and their chosen mechanisms for communicating with the public.
Quantitatively, these undecided responses were coded as one (1) for later statistical processing.
The third group of entities responded affirmatively, and argued its views as follows:
Yes, those that wish to be included in the procedure can find all the relevant information, others
are mostly uninterested. Formally, yes, but most people do not understand the information. Yes,
if animated by politicians or the media.
Quantitatively, these undecided responses were coded as two (2) for later statistical processing.
Responses to the question were coded in the statistical process under the variable procedure and
importance of physical planning.
Table 1 shows the frequency of all instances of the variable procedure and importance of
physical planning.
Legend: 0 - no; 1- I don’t know, I'm not sure; 2 - yes.
34 of the respondents believe that the concerned public has been adequately informed, but lacks
the necessary concern to perceive the importance of participating in the creation and adoption of
a spatial plan. These respondents base their positive answer on the idea that local politics is only
interested in meeting the minimal formal requirements for informing the public and actually
prefers to have as little debate as possible.
The majority of the respondents (66%) has expressed a negative or undecided opinion and
believes that the public has not been fully informed about the procedure and importance of
physical planning.
Table 2 shows the frequency of the variable procedure and importance of physical planning in
the 10 predefined target groups.
Table 1: Absolute and cumulative relative frequencies of the variable
procedure and importance of physical planning, N=100.
Responses Frequency Cumulative relative frequency
0 53 53.00
1 13 66.00
2 34 100.00
735
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.
Table 2 shows the frequency of the variable procedure and importance of physical planning in
the 10 predefined target groups so certain sub-samples differ completely with respect to the
defined responses. Namely, representatives of environmental NGOs (ASSOCIATIONS) have
given the maximum possible number of negative responses and believe that the public has not
been fully informed about the procedure and importance of physical planning. Most of the
respondents from the target groups CIVIL INITIATIVES, SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS, STUDY
MAKERS, DEVELOPERS and POLITICAL PARTIES have also stated that the public has not
been adequately informed. On the other hand, most of the respondents from the target groups
CITIES and COUNTIES, groups that include individuals employed by the city or county
administration and responsible for conducting public debates and spatial planning
representatives, believe that the public has been properly and fully informed about the procedure
and importance of physical planning.
Table 2: Frequency of instances of the variable procedure and importance of
physical planning according to target group, N=100.
Responses SM DE ME CI CO AS CI EA PP S/J Total
0 6 6 4 3 2 10 7 2 6 7 53
1 2 0 2 0 1 0 3 4 1 0 13
2 2 4 4 7 7 0 0 4 3 3 34
736
A one-way ANOVA variance analysis was conducted to determine if there was a statistically
significant difference in the results between the predefined sub-samples and ten target groups,
along with an additional post hoc analysis (Tukey HSD test). The analysis shows that there is a
statistically significant difference between the target groups, with a significance level of p=0.00.
The results of the post hoc analysis of the variable procedure and importance of physical
planning with respect to target groups are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: The results of the post hoc analysis of the variable procedure and importance of
physical planning with respect to target groups, N=100.
SM DE ME CI CO AS CI EA PP S/J
SM 1.00 0.99 0.51 0.34 0.84 1.00 0.84 1.00 1.00
DE 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.69 0.51 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.00
ME 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.20 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.99
CI 0.51 0.84 0.99 1.00 0.01 0.11 1.00 0.69 0.51
CO 0.34 0.69 0.94 1.00 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.51 0.34
AS 0.84 0.51 0.20 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.06 0.69 0.84
CI 1.00 0.94 0.69 0.11 0.06 1.00 0.34 0.99 1.00
EA 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.34 0.94 0.84
PP 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.51 0.69 0.99 0.94 1.00
S/J 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.51 0.34 0.84 1.00 0.84 1.00
Legend: 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;
737
S/J – SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS – representatives of academic institutions and journalists
who are involved in the process.
The results of the Tukey HSD post hoc analysis show that there is a statistically significant
difference between the responses given by members of the COUNTIES target group
(representatives of the employees of the county administration for environmental protection
responsible for conducting public debates and spatial planning representatives) and the
ASSOCIATIONS target group (representatives of non-governmental environmental
associations) for the variable procedure and importance of physical planning.
The results of a qualitative analysis of the frequency of the variable procedure and importance of
physical planning according to sector group is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Frequency of instances of the variable procedure and importance of physical planning
according to sector group, N=100.
Responses PUBLIC SECTOR CIVIL SECTOR ECONOMIC SECTOR Total
0 16 23 14 53
1 3 4 6 13
2 21 3 10 34
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.
Respondents from the public sector who have expressed a positive opinion on the level of public
awareness when it comes to the procedure and importance of physical planning amount to 21%
of the total number of respondents, while those members of the public sector who have expressed
a negative opinion amount to 16%. Respondents from the civil sector have mostly expressed a
negative opinion, amounting to 23% of the total number of respondents. 14 of the 30 respondents
from the economic sector have expressed a negative opinion, while 10 respondents have
expressed a positive opinion on the level of public awareness about the physical planning
procedure. Based on the results and the study goal, the following hypothesis was made:
738
(H1) The hypothesis that there is a statistically significant difference between responses given by
entities with respect to target and sector groups on the issue of public awareness of the
procedure and importance of physical planning has been confirmed and is accepted.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the differences in the opinions and level of awareness among the concerned public
in Croatia with respect to the level of awareness about the procedure and importance of physical
planning in the predefined target and sector groups was analysed. 34% of the respondents believe
that the public has been adequately informed, but is still not completely aware of the importance
of public involvement in the processes of creating and adopting a spatial plan. These respondents
base their positive answer on the idea that local politics is only interested in meeting the minimal
formal requirements for informing the public and actually prefers to have as little debate as
possible. The majority of the respondents (66%) has expressed a negative or undecided opinion
and believes that the public has not been fully informed about the procedure and importance of
physical planning. There is a difference in the frequency of the variable procedure and
importance of physical planning in the 10 predefined target groups so certain sub-samples differ
completely with respect to the defined responses. Namely, representatives of environmental
NGOs (ASSOCIATIONS) have given the maximum possible number of negative responses and
believe that the public has not been fully informed about the procedure and importance of
physical planning. Most of the respondents from the target groups CIVIL INITIATIVES,
SCIENTISTS/JOURNALISTS, STUDY MAKERS, DEVELOPERS and POLITICAL PARTIES
have also stated that the public has not been adequately informed. On the other hand, most of the
respondents from the target groups CITIES and COUNTIES, groups that include individuals
employed by the city or county administration and responsible for conducting public debates and
spatial planning representatives, believe that the public has been properly and fully informed
about the procedure and importance of physical planning. Respondents from the public sector
who have expressed a positive opinion on the level of public awareness when it comes to the
procedure and importance of physical planning amount to 21% of the total number of
respondents, while those members of the public sector who have expressed a negative opinion
amount to 16%. Respondents from the civil sector have mostly expressed a negative opinion,
amounting to 23% of the total number of respondents. 14 of the 30 respondents from the
economic sector have expressed a negative opinion, while 10 respondents have expressed a
positive opinion on the level of public awareness about the physical planning procedure.
Representatives of the civil, economic and public sectors are divided in their opinions and have a
different view of the role key actors have in the system of public informing and involvement in
physical planning procedures. The mutual mistrust between the three sectors can only be solved
through better communication and the improvement of the quality of public informing and
involvement in physical planning procedures. All respondents are aware of the increasing
importance of the role the general and concerned publics have in physical planning and the
related decision-making process, but have also noted that the local community is not involved
enough in the presentation of development plans and projects and is therefore not helping
address possible public complaints.
The problem of a lack of participation and public information at the stage of adoption of spatial
plans is best reflected by public relations theorists Grunig and Hunt, based on the model of
communication with the public and their involvement in social processes, as the analysis of the
739
results obtained in this study on informing and participation of the public in public debates in the
processes of spatial planning refers to (Grunig and Hunt, 1984) two models: public information
model and a two-way asymmetrical model. Public information model where bodies in charge of
spatial plans use the media as a communication channel to transmit what is generally accurate
information, providing only general information, while avoiding the possible broadcasting of
negative information about the impact on the environment. This is a one-way communication
model with no feedback, in which the spatial plan decision-maker reports the information from
the local to the state level itself in communication with the public and stakeholders up to the
phase of public review/public debate, and afterwards up to the adoption of the plans. For the
duration of the public review/public debate, there is a two-way asymmetrical model, the
importance is given to the public opinion and different methods of its measurement. It is two-
way because of feedback and adjustment of public relations to the responses from message
recipients, and it is asymmetrical due to the subordinate role of the public, and because it is being
manipulated in a certain way.
References
Charmaz K. 1990. Discovering Chronic Illness: Using Grounded Theory. Soc.Sci.Med. 30(11):
1161-1172.
Cifrić I. 2009. Kultura i okoliš. Visoka škola za poslovanje i upravljanje s pravom javnosti
Baltazar Adam Krčelić: Zaprešić.
Cox R. 2013. Environmental communication and the public sphere. Third Edition. The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Sage Publications.
Creswell JW. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Second edition. Sage Publications: University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Cutlip SM, et al. 2000. Chapter 7 Theoretical Foundations, Adjustment and Adaptation. In
Effective Public Relations, (A/N translated by author), Eighth edition. Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ; 220-222, 228-236, 240-245.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications: London.
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public
participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the
environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council
Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC. (EIA, 2011/92/EC); Aarhus Convention (NN – MU
1/07).
Grunig JE, Hunt T. 1984. Managing Public Relations. Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New York.
A/N: most cited model represents a typology of public relations based on observations
from practice.
Holton JA. 2007. The Coding Process and Its Challenges. Grounded Theory: the Sage
Handbook, Antony Bryant, Kathy Charmaz (eds). Thousand Oaks: London; Sage
Publications: New Delhi, Singapore.
740
Jugo D. 2012. Strategije odnosa s javnošću. First edition. Profil knjiga; Novelti Millenium:
Zagreb.
Kunczik M, Zipfel A. 1988. Uvod u publicističku znanost i komunikologiju. Zaklada Friedrich
Ebert: Zagreb.
Kunczik M, Zipfel A. 2000. Uvod u znanost o medijima i komunikologiju. Zaklada Friedrich
Ebert: Zagreb.
Malbaša N, Jelavić V. 2013. Povijesni pregled i aktualni problemi procjene utjecaja na okoliš u
Republici Hrvatskoj. In Proceedings: Prva regionalna konferencija o procjeni utjecaja na
okoliš, Marta Brkić, Nenad Mikulić (eds). Hrvatska udruga stručnjaka zaštite prirode i
okoliša: Zagreb; 31-43.
Mejovšek M. 2013. Metode znanstvenog istraživanja u društvenim i humanističkim znanostima.
Second edition. Naklada Slap: Jastrebarsko.
Ofak L. 2009. Public participation in environmental decision-making. In Economics and Public
Sector Management, Marija Kaštelan Mrak (ed). University of Rijeka, Faculty of
Economics: Rijeka; (115-117): 114-150.
Petz B, Kolesarić V, Ivanec D. 2012. Petzova statistika: osnovne statističke metode za
nematematičare. Naklada Slap: Jastrebarsko.
Popcorn F. 1991. The Popcorn Report: Faith Popcorn on the Future of Your Company, Your
World, Your Life. Doubleday Currency: New York.
Silverman D. 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and
Interaction. Third edition. Thousand Oaks: London; Sage Publications: New Delhi.
Toffler A. 1984. The Third Wave. Bantham: New York, Toronto, London, Sydney, Auckland.