As environmental protection efforts increasingly focus on land use decisions, local governments face mounting pressures to control development in wetland areas. These pressures are especially strong as citizens and environmental groups recognize the limitations of federal efforts to protect wetlands. Door County, Wisconsin, offers an interesting example of the perils and pitfalls associated with trying to move beyond federal and state wetland regulations. Door County, by adopting wetland districts as part of its county zoning ordinance, created greater protection of wetlands—but at the expense of increasing confusion about the various roles of town, county, state, and federal governments. Although the case reveals a high level of interest to protect wetlands among key stakeholder groups, bureaucratic inertia and political tensions between town and county governments hamper efforts to move beyond the existing program. Most striking is the tenuous nature of partnerships formed in the process of community-based environmental protection.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clinton, W. J. , & Gore, A. (1995). Reinventing environmental regulation (White House Policy Paper). Washington, DC: The White House.
2.
Cobb, R. , & Elder, C. (1972). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Cwikiel, W. (Ed.). (1995). Citizen wetland initiatives: Stories from the Great Lakes. Conway, MI: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council.
4.
Door County, Wisconsin . (1995). Door County development plan. Sturgeon Bay, WI: Door County Planning Department.
5.
Door County zoning ordinance. (1998). (Available from the Door County Planning Department, Sturgeon Bay, WI)
6.
English, M. R. (1999). Environmental decision making by organizations: Choosing the right tools. In K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, & T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses and communities (pp. 57-75). Washington, DC: Island Press.
7.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator . (1997). People, places, and partnerships: A progress report on community based environmental protection (EPA 100-R-97-003). Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Finnegan, J. R., Jr. , & Sexton, K. (1999). Community-based environmental decisions: Analyzing power and leadership. In K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, & T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses and communities (pp. 331-352). Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
John D. , & Mlay, M. (1999). Community-based environmental protection: Encouraging civic environmentalism. In K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, & T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses and communities (pp. 353-376). Washington, DC: Island Press.
10.
Kent, P. G. (1994). Wisconsin water law: A guide to water rights and regulations. Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.
11.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
12.
Long, F. J. , & Arnold, M. B. (1995). The power of environmental partnerships. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press.
13.
Mazmanian, D. A. , & Morrell, D. (1994). The NIMBY syndrome: Facility siting and the failure of democratic discourse. In N. J. Vig & M. E. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy in the 1990s: Toward a new agenda (2nd ed., pp. 233-249). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
14.
Murdock, B. S. , & Sexton, K. (1999). Community-based environmental partnerships. In K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, & T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses and communities (pp. 377-400). Washington, DC: Island Press.
15.
O'Leary, R. , Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & Weiland, P. S. (1999). Managing for the environment: Understanding the legal, organizational and policy challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Rabe, B. G. (1996). An empirical examination of innovations in integrated environmental management: The case of the Great Lakes basin. Public Administration Review, 56, 372-381.
17.
Rich, R. C. , Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. H. (1995). Citizen participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 657-675.
18.
Scheberle, D., & Pagel, R. (1999). Developing an effective and efficient wetland protection program in Door County. Unpublished report submitted to the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Madison, WI.
19.
Speer, P. W. , & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-749.
20.
Studt, J. F. (1987). Special area management plans in the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program. National Wetlands Newsletter, 9(3), 8-10.
21.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning . (1992). Water quality standards for Wisconsin's wetlands: The NR 103 decision process (PUBL-WZ-025-92). Madison, WI: Author.
22.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Watershed Management . (1997a). Shore land management program assessment (PUBL-WT-508-97). Madison, WI: Author.
23.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Watershed Management . (1997b). Shore land zoning resource guide: An annotated model shore land zoning ordinance. Madison, WI: Author.
24.
Yosie, T. F. , & Herbst, T. D. (1998). Using stakeholder processes in environmental decision making: An evaluation of lessons learned, key issues and future challenges. Washington, DC: Ruder Finn Washington.
