Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Won’t They Come? Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by Participation Level

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaboration has taken root in national forest planning, providing expanded opportunities for stakeholder participation in decision-making, but are these processes considered meaningful by key stakeholders? Do the processes result in increased participation by key stakeholders? We present results of a study of stakeholder perspectives of a collaborative planning process on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests in Western Colorado, U.S.A. The stakeholders were stratified by participation levels in order to explore a possible relationship between participation and perceptions of the collaborative process. We used a Q-methodology approach to compare and contrast perspectives across participant levels in the North Fork Valley Landscape Working Group process. The results demonstrate four distinct perspectives on the collaborative process: 1) The collaborative process is valued by the Forest Service and will directly influence planning decisions; 2) The Forest Service, the collaborative process, and other stakeholders are not to be trusted; 3) The collaborative process is most effective when emphasizing place-specific dialogue that primarily involves stakeholders educating the Forest Service about issues; and 4) Forest planning involves issues requiring the application of scientific knowledge and expertise rather than collaboration. These perspectives were not strongly associated with participation levels, with time constraint being the primary mediating factor affecting participation. There are several possible actions policymakers and planners can take to enhance participation and overcome high rates of nonparticipation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addams H. 2000. Q methodology. In H. Addams, J. Proops (eds), Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Northampton, MA, pp 19–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Addams H., J. Proops (eds), 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Northampton, MA, 224 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J., G. Herath. 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: A value function approach. Ecological Economics 45:75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelstrand M. 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Policy and Economics 4:281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (ed), Encyclopedia of human behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T. C., J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, 147 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T.C., D.M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19:587–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blahna D. J., S. Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources 2:209–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburg A. M., M. S. Carroll. 1995. Your place, or mine: the effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources 8:381–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brick P., D. Snow, S. Van de Wetering (eds), 2001. Across the Great Divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Island Press, Washington, DC, 286 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 355 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns S., A. S. Cheng. 2005. The utilization of collaborative processes in forest planning. Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr D. S., S. W. Selin, M. A. Schuett. 1998. Managing public forests: Understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environmental Management 22:767–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cestero B. 1999. Beyond the hundredth meeting: a field guide to collaborative conservation on the West’s public lands. Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ, 80 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase L. C., D. J. Decker, T. B. Lauber. 2004. Public participation in wildlife management: what do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources 17:629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng A. S., S. E. Daniels. 2003. Examining the interaction between geographic scale and ways of knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of place-based collaborative planning. Forest Science 49:841–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng A. S., L. E. Kruger, S. E. Daniels. 2003. “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources 16:87–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortner H. J., M. A. Shannon. 1993. Embedding public participation in its political context. Journal of Forestry 91:14–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels S. E., G. B. Walker. 1996. Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:71–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels S. E., G. B. Walker. 2001. Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport, CT, 328 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis S. 1997. Does public participation really matter in public lands management? Some evidence from a national forest. Southeastern Political Review 25:253–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derr T., A. Moote, M. Savage, M. Schumann, J. Abrams, L. McCarthy, K. Lowe. 2005. What is multiparty monitoring? USDA Forest Service, Collaborative Forest Restoration Program, Albuquerque, NM, 18 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Diduck A., A. J. Sinclair. 2002. Public involvement in environmental assessment: the case of the nonparticipant. Environmental Management 29:578–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukes E. F., K. Firehock. 2001. Collaboration: a guide for environmental advocates. Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 70 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Facaros N. 1989. Public involvement in national forest planning: what the Council of Environmental Quality requires, the Forest Service neglects. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 4:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R., W. Ury. 1991. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 200 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Gericke K. L., J. Sullivan, J. D. Wellman. 1992. Public participation in national forest planning: perspectives, procedures, and costs. Journal of Forestry 90:35–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Germain R. H., D. W. Floyd, S. V. Stehman. 2001. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics 3:113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen K. E. 2001. Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience, satisfaction, and deliberation. Environmental Management 28:179–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Innes J. E., D. E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice 5:419–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B. R., R. Campbell. 1999. Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Studies Journal 27:502–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney D. S. 2000. Arguing about consensus: examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder, CO, 72 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiboer M. 1994. Ripeness of conflict: a fruitful notion? Journal of Peace Research 31:109–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollock P. 1998. Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology 24:183–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange J.I. 2001. Exploring paradox in environmental collaborations. In P. D. Brick, D. Snow, S. B. Van der Wetering (eds), Across the Great Divide: explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 200–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauber T. B., B. A. Knuth. 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources 11:411–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence R. L., S. E. Daniels, G. H. Stankey. 1997. Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources 10:557–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, W. D. 2006. Public involvement in USDA Forest Service policymaking: a literature review. Journal of Forestry (in press)

  • Lind E. A., T. R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New York, 284 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie K. W., M. R. Greenberg. 2001. Can David and Goliath get along? Federal land in local places. Environmental Management 28:703–711

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McBride D. C. 1979. The effects of personal efficacy on participation and non-participation in social problem solving behavior. Ph.D., Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 188 pp

  • McCloskey M. 1996. The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. High Country News 28:7

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown B., D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Sage Publications/University Papers, Newbury Park, CA, 83 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels S., R. J. Mason, W. D. Solecki. 1999. The importance of place in partnerships for regional environmental management. Environmental Conservation 26:159–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale M. A., M. H. Bazerman. 1992. Negotiator cognition and rationality: a behavioral decision theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51:157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann E. 1974. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noelle-Neumann E. 1993. The spiral of silence: public opinion—our social skin, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 200 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson M. 1965. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 186 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson D. D. 1998. Collaborative management of public rangeland in Wyoming: lessons in co-management. Professional Geographer 50:301–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polzer J. T., E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale. 1995. Multiparty negotiation in its social context. In R. M. Kramer, D. M. Messick (eds), Negotiation as a social process. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 123–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Press D. 1994. Democratic dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: trees and toxics in the American West. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 167 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin S. W., M. A. Schuett, D. S. Carr. 1997. Has collaborative planning taken root in the National Forests? Journal of Forestry 95:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Singleton S. 2002. Collaborative environmental planning in the American West: the good, the bad and the ugly. Environmental Politics 11:54–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon J., W. E. Shands, C. Liggett. 1993. Communities of interest and open decision-making. Journal of Forestry 91:17–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P. D., M. H. McDonough. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision-making. Society & Natural Resources 14:239–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman T., L. A. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18:361–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steelman T. A. 2001. Elite and participatory policymaking: finding balance in a case of national forest planning. Policy Studies Journal 29:71–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant V. E., J. I. Lange. 2003. From them to us: The Applegate partnership. In J. Kusel, E. Adler (eds), Forest communities, community forests: struggles and successes in rebuilding communities and forests. Rowman & Littlefield, Landham, MD. pp 117–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C. W. 1999. Linking public agencies with community-based watershed organizations: lessons from California. Policy Studies Journal 27:544–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J. C. 1995. Public participation in public decisions: new skills and strategies for public managers. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 211 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L., R. Hastie. 1990a. Judgment tasks and biases in negotiation. Research on Negotiation in Organization 2:31–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L., R. Hastie. 1990b. Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47:98–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:850–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker G. B., S. E. Daniels. 2001. Natural resource policy and the paradox of public involvement: Bring scientists and citizens together. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 13:253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T., S. Tuler. 2001. Public participation in watershed management planning: views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review 8:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler T., S. Tuler, R. Krueger. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27:435–450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T., S. Tuler, I. Shockey, P. Stern, R. Beattie. 2003. Participation by local government officials in watershed management planning. Society and Natural Resources 16:105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams E. M., P. V. Ellefson. 1997. Going into partnership to manage a landscape. Journal of Forestry 95:29–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck J. M., S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC, 277 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley J. T., M. V. McGinnis. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources 13:339–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman I. W. 1985. Ripe for resolution: conflict and intervention in Africa. Oxford University Press, New York, 260 pp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Rangeland, & Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1472, USA

    Antony S. Cheng & Katherine M. Mattor

Authors
  1. Antony S. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine M. Mattor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antony S. Cheng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, A.S., Mattor, K.M. Why Won’t They Come? Stakeholder Perspectives on Collaborative National Forest Planning by Participation Level. Environmental Management 38, 545–561 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0124-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0124-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation