Keywords

1 Introduction

Participatory approaches in environmental planning are popular due to their support for sustainable development. The shift from top-down to bottom–up approaches that are participatory is motivated by the need to take care of location-specific concerns of stakeholders in policy making in a bid to solve environmental, economic and social problems [1]. Participatory approaches are relevant because environmental problems cannot be solved by only authorities, but by engaging stakeholders in the causes and solutions so as to secure democratic legitimacy of decision-making as a critical factor for good environmental governance [2].

Using ICTs to support public participation refers to e-participation [3]. ICTs motivate and widen the participation spectrum of citizens, broaden their involvement in the policy process, generate real time qualitative and accessible information [4], pro-actively change spheres of public involvement [3], and motivated the discovery of Geographic Information System (GIS) to enhance environment management [5]. However, GIS has been criticized as an ‘elite’ technology that lacks suitable tools to solicit public views for effective planning and decision making, hence the introduction of Public Participatory GIS – PPGIS [5, 6]. PPGIS is a set of methods for integrating public knowledge of places to inform land use planning and decision making [6]. PPGIS is one of the e-participation tools that specifically support public participation in planning [7] and environmental decision-making processes [8, 9]. PPGIS facilitate understanding of environmental problems and allow players to highlight their points of view on maps [10].

Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is one of the environment challenges whose planning process can be enhanced by use of participatory tools such as PPGIS [11]. PPGIS can enhance MSWM by supporting several executive, operational, environmental, social and managerial decisions such as the siting of waste processing and disposal units, selection of waste-treatment technologies, and allocation of waste flow to processing facilities and landfills [12]. Higgs [13] emphasizes that participative IT-based methods that combine GIS and multi-criteria evaluation techniques when involving the public in the decision-making process, support consensus building and reduce conflicts involved in siting waste facilities.

Although there has been commendable progress in developing methods to involve non-experts in planning and decision-making using PPGIS tools, the field still faces several challenges [14]. However, these challenges are not technological, but are social, economic and political; and call for the need to enhance PPGIS capabilities with conceptual theories on political, social and economic issues [15]. To address this need, Enhanced Adaptive Structuration theory version 2 (EAST-2) is adopted as the theoretical framework to investigate political, social and economic hindrances of public participation. This investigation was contextualized by using MSWM as a case study. Section 2 presents related work on public participation and PPGIS in MSWM. Section 3 presents the design of an exploratory survey on public participation in MSWM, Sect. 4 presents results, Sect. 5 concludes the paper.

2 Related Work

2.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM)

MSWM is the control of generation, storage, collection, transport or transfer, processing and disposal of solid waste materials by developing sustainable waste management strategies [16]. However, its implementation and adoption varies across countries due to factors such as: population density, transportation infrastructure, social economics and environmental regulations [17].

2.2 Public Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management

Public participation in MSWM is crucial because everyone generates waste and they are affected indirectly or directly by poor waste management. However, citizens are normally regarded passive recipients of government services which inhibit their ability to explore the different roles in government service delivery [18]. Amidst complex MSWM challenges faced by municipalities in developing countries, citizen participation is a necessary component of the remedy. Public involvement in waste strategy and planning helps to transform traditional consultation techniques to incorporate deliberative and participatory activities that involve lay communities in decision making [19]. According to Garnett and Cooper [20] changing existing waste management practices and behaviors that are inherent in communities requires broader public participation in decision making. Public participation in waste management in crucial because: (1) landfill space is now scarce and yet the communities also are less likely to accept landfills to be sited near their habitation for environmental and health reasons, (2) systematic sorting of waste at the different stages right from the source to the disposal sites is inadequate, (3) manner in which waste is disposed of especially in the developing world may only suit participation of the public in order to reverse the effects of poor solid waste disposal, (4) public participation helps to build trust and avoid controversy over decisions, (5) public support is needed to implement policies [21,22,23].

Although public participation is important for the success of any waste management system, it is faced with many challenges. Several studies [22, 24, 25] report challenges faced for public participation in waste management. Other studies [22, 23] classify these challenges. Besides the classifications used by these scholars, in this study we adopt a classification based on EAST-2 constructs as presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Challenges for public participation in MSWM
Full size table

2.3 PPGIS Support for Public Participation in MSWM

Modern Participatory processes are quite often associated with interactive platforms such as discussion forums, collaborative software, web-GIS/internet-GIS and PPGIS to promote two-way interaction among the citizens and local authorities [10]. However, PPGIS is the commonly used platform in environmental planning [10]. Planning for MSWM can benefit from the implementation and uptake of PPGIS because MSWM issues have locational attribute [32]. Thus, public participation should be focused on the locational aspects of waste management aided by PPGIS [32, 33]. Idris and Mohd [21] also noted that PPGIS enables citizen to record and follow up their feelings and spatial knowledge regarding main problems of the city such as MSWM. In addition, PPGIS can tackle several factors simultaneously which need to be considered while planning waste management [34].

The potential of PPGIS to support public participation in planning and decision making is widely recognized in literature [35,36,37]. However, the actual use of PPGIS still faces many obstacles that go beyond the technology aspects [15, 38]. Babelon et al. [15] noted that a theoretical understanding of the social-technical aspects associated with the implementation and use of PPGIS is crucial. These aspects include:

  • Tool design and affordances are concerned with the design, application and use values of PPGIS applications. Affordances are influenced by the functionalities of the tool.

  • Organizational capacity concerns financial resources and skilled staff to facilitate uses participatory planning.

  • Organizational capacity which is determined by parameters such as incentives, resource allocation, knowledge and experience sharing, early PPGIS application in the planning stages and PPGIS adaptability in all planning stages.

  • Governance issues such as municipal governance structures and context are crucial for the design and implementation of PPGIS applications.

According to Brown and Kyatta [14] technical, social and political issues affect the implementation and uptake of PPGIS and these include: (1) Understanding and increasing participation rates, (2) Evaluating the effectiveness of PPGIS (the focus has been largely put on evaluating the technology not the process outcomes), and (3) Improving “PP” in PPGIS.

Sieber [6] developed a framework for analyzing PPGIS implementations. It considers coproduction of PPGIS as an integration of several aspects such as:

  • Place and people dimension considers cultural influences, stakeholder relations and influences important for PPGIS implementation and subsequent acceptance.

  • Technology and data dimension considers accessibility of data, representation of data, the cost of hardware and software and the extent of GIS technology for operationalization of PPGIS.

  • Process outcome and evaluation considers discursive goals such as empowerment, social capacity and inclusion, equity and redistribution and expanded participation.

2.4 Applications of EAST 2

Public participation can be framed using complex decision situation. Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory EAST [39] and EAST-2 [40] are the frameworks that have been used to analyse and understand technology use in large group decision making situations. EAST-2 includes eight constructs that characterize complex decision. These constructs are categorised as convening, process and outcome. All EAST-2 constructs helps us to understand that information technology use in public participation is influenced by rather broad-based set of issues. Chang and Li [41] critiqued EAST 2 for not being robust to explain real-time synchronous geo-collaborations and suggested that participant profiles, task information, access to information and communication among participants are important for real time geo-collaborations. Porwol et al. [42] suggested that public participation process and real time geo-collaborations can benefit from dynamic capabilities orchestrated by the World Wide Web (WWW) such as ubiquitous participation and remote monitoring. Wang [43] applied EAST 2 to analyse Volunteered Geographical reporting systems and concluded that Participant’s trust, beliefs (public participants influence aspects) and the role of convenor (social-institutional aspects) are not crucial. Modifications advanced [41,42,43] have been considered to adapt EAST-2 framework shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Conceptual Framework PPGIS implementation in MSWM (Extension of EAST-2 by Jankowski and Nyerges [38])

Full size image

3 Set up of the Exploratory Survey

The study sought to establish the factors influencing public participation in a participatory planning process for MSWM in Uganda. Qualitative exploratory study was done through conductive interviews with key stakeholders involved in planning for MSWM. The Interviews were conducted between January and March 2018. Table 2 shows key factors that were considered when designing the exploratory survey.

Table 2. Design of the exploratory interviews on challenges of public participation in MSWM
Full size table

4 Results

This section presents analyzes study findings using components of EAST 2.

4.1 Social-Institutional Influence on Participatory Planning Process

Results relating to social-institutional influence include: availability of resources, institutional practices and norms, legislation and mandate and political will.

Institutional practices and norms have an impact on public participation. Current municipal practices and norms in regard to planning for MSWM do not cater for involvement of stakeholders. “It is a common practice with institutions not to involve stakeholders; however, there is a change where majority stakeholders are being brought on board” (solid waste officer 1).

Availability of resources has an effect on Public participation in MSWM. Time, funds and human resources are needed to conduct successful participatory planning process. “It is time consuming and costly to involve the stakeholders” (solid waste officer 3). Availability of resources has an effect on a participatory planning and the subsequent outcomes because it has an impact on the number of stakeholders that can be involved in the process “Budget constraints limit us on the number of stakeholders to involve in council meetings” (solid officer 3).

Legislation and guidelines – A set of well established guidelines and procedures are needed prior to establishing a participatory planning process. Guidelines and legislations held to demonstrate the relevancy of stakeholders at each stage in planning and the premises of participation. At least 13 respondents reported lack of guidelines as one of the reasons for not involving stakeholders in planning for MSWM.

Political will – Municipal authorities are reluctant to involve stakeholders in the planning processes. “Public participation hinders development so most institutions are not ready to involve the public and other stakeholders” (solid waste officer 1).

4.2 Participant Influence on Participatory Planning Process

Results show that participant’s knowledge and awareness of the existing MSWM practices has an influence on the participatory planning process. Participants give views based on the knowledge and experience they have. However, solid waste 2 and 4 noted that. “Some stakeholders are at times not ware of existing MSWM practices and initiatives and some lack knowledge of MSWM principles” In addition, public attitude towards municipal solid waste management initiatives and projects has an effect on participatory planning process. The public resist municipal solid waste initiatives. Thus, sensitization campaigns and negotiations have to be first carried out in order to prepare the public for change. “Most people think that handling municipal waste is not their responsibility so they are not concerned” (Field officer 1).

4.3 PPGIS and the Participatory Planning

Respondents reported limited application of ICTs especially GIS in MSWM practices; although ICTs are necessary component of any sound municipal solid waste system. “ICTs such as GIS are rarely used. The entire process is still manual” (solid waste officer 1). Also, views were collected on the awareness of the roles of GIS in waste management. All the 23 respondents agreed that they were aware of the roles GIS plays in municipal solid waste management processes especially in the selection of suitable sites for waste disposal, route scheduling and optimization, waste disposal site monitoring and management.

5 Discussions and Conclusions

The study investigated the social, institutional and technology aspects that affect participatory planning processes. The key aspects are legislation, institutional practices and norms, political will, knowledge and awareness challenges and attitude. Results show that the current institutional practices and norms do not favor participatory planning process. The current practice is that institutions make decisions without involving stakeholders especially the general public. These results are in line with findings of Minn et al. [27] who noted that decisions regarding planning and implementation of waste management strategies are made by municipalities without taking into consideration the concerns of the general public. In addition, results show that there is lack of knowledge on the general principles and practices in MSWM needed for public participation. Mukama et al. [25] also found that practices, concerns, and attitudes of residents in slum areas indicate lack of sufficient knowledge about good waste practices and their responsibilities in MSWM.

From the findings, participant’s attitude towards a participatory planning process affects the process itself and the subsequent outcomes. The public feel it is the mandate of municipal authorities to handle all the municipal solid waste aspects and hence they are not interested in participating in any of the initiatives. Minn et al. [25] findings show people have indifferent attitude towards keeping public places clean and they too lack interest in participating in the drive for sustainable MSWM. Thus, change in attitude and behavior is critical for the success of public participation initiatives for MSWM.

We conclude that PPGIS implementations for successful public participation in MSWM require: sensitization of public on waste management practices, setting up ICT infrastructure and advocate for adoption of ICTs in MSWM, equip staff with skills to conduct participatory processes, allocate funds to conduct citizen participation projects and establish procedures for recruiting participants. At this preliminary stage, the study did not consider views of citizens so as to enrich views of institutions responsible for MSWM. Hence a limitation, that is to be explored in future work.