Environmental Management

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 545–561 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Public participation Nonparticipant Nonparticipation Collaboration Collaborative planning 

References

  1. 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 19–90Google Scholar
  2. Addams H., J. Proops (eds), 2000. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Northampton, MA, 224 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Ananda J., G. Herath. 2003. Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: A value function approach. Ecological Economics 45:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appelstrand M. 2002. Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners. Forest Policy and Economics 4:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (ed), Encyclopedia of human behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  6. Beierle T. C., J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, 147 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Beierle T.C., D.M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19:587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blahna D. J., S. Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources 2:209–227Google Scholar
  9. 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 8:381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 355 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Burns S., A. S. Cheng. 2005. The utilization of collaborative processes in forest planning. Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College, Durango, COGoogle Scholar
  13. Carr D. S., S. W. Selin, M. A. Schuett. 1998. Managing public forests: Understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environmental Management 22:767–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cestero B. 1999. Beyond the hundredth meeting: a field guide to collaborative conservation on the West’s public lands. Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ, 80 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase L. C., D. J. Decker, T. B. Lauber. 2004. Public participation in wildlife management: what do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources 17:629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 49:841–854Google Scholar
  17. 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 16:87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cortner H. J., M. A. Shannon. 1993. Embedding public participation in its political context. Journal of Forestry 91:14–16Google Scholar
  19. Daniels S. E., G. B. Walker. 1996. Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daniels S. E., G. B. Walker. 2001. Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport, CT, 328 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis S. 1997. Does public participation really matter in public lands management? Some evidence from a national forest. Southeastern Political Review 25:253–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Diduck A., A. J. Sinclair. 2002. Public involvement in environmental assessment: the case of the nonparticipant. Environmental Management 29:578–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dukes E. F., K. Firehock. 2001. Collaboration: a guide for environmental advocates. Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 70 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 4:1–34Google Scholar
  26. Fisher R., W. Ury. 1991. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 200 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Gericke K. L., J. Sullivan, J. D. Wellman. 1992. Public participation in national forest planning: perspectives, procedures, and costs. Journal of Forestry 90:35–38Google Scholar
  28. Germain R. H., D. W. Floyd, S. V. Stehman. 2001. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics 3:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Halvorsen K. E. 2001. Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience, satisfaction, and deliberation. Environmental Management 28:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Innes J. E., D. E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice 5:419–436Google Scholar
  31. Johnson B. R., R. Campbell. 1999. Ecology and participation in landscape-based planning within the Pacific Northwest. Policy Studies Journal 27:502–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Kleiboer M. 1994. Ripeness of conflict: a fruitful notion? Journal of Peace Research 31:109–116Google Scholar
  34. Kollock P. 1998. Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology 24:183–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 200–209Google Scholar
  36. Lauber T. B., B. A. Knuth. 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources 11:411–424Google Scholar
  37. Lawrence R. L., S. E. Daniels, G. H. Stankey. 1997. Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources 10:557–573Google Scholar
  38. Leach, W. D. 2006. Public involvement in USDA Forest Service policymaking: a literature review. Journal of Forestry (in press)Google Scholar
  39. Lind E. A., T. R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New York, 284 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Lowrie K. W., M. R. Greenberg. 2001. Can David and Goliath get along? Federal land in local places. Environmental Management 28:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. McCloskey M. 1996. The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. High Country News 28:7Google Scholar
  43. McKeown B., D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Sage Publications/University Papers, Newbury Park, CA, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Michaels S., R. J. Mason, W. D. Solecki. 1999. The importance of place in partnerships for regional environmental management. Environmental Conservation 26:159–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neale M. A., M. H. Bazerman. 1992. Negotiator cognition and rationality: a behavioral decision theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noelle-Neumann E. 1974. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noelle-Neumann E. 1993. The spiral of silence: public opinion—our social skin, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 200 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Olson M. 1965. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 186 ppGoogle Scholar
  49. Paulson D. D. 1998. Collaborative management of public rangeland in Wyoming: lessons in co-management. Professional Geographer 50:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 123–142Google Scholar
  51. Press D. 1994. Democratic dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: trees and toxics in the American West. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 167 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Selin S. W., M. A. Schuett, D. S. Carr. 1997. Has collaborative planning taken root in the National Forests? Journal of Forestry 95:17–21Google Scholar
  53. Singleton S. 2002. Collaborative environmental planning in the American West: the good, the bad and the ugly. Environmental Politics 11:54–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sirmon J., W. E. Shands, C. Liggett. 1993. Communities of interest and open decision-making. Journal of Forestry 91:17–21Google Scholar
  55. Smith P. D., M. H. McDonough. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision-making. Society & Natural Resources 14:239–249Google Scholar
  56. Steelman T., L. A. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18:361–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steelman T. A. 2001. Elite and participatory policymaking: finding balance in a case of national forest planning. Policy Studies Journal 29:71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strauss A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 117–133Google Scholar
  60. Thomas C. W. 1999. Linking public agencies with community-based watershed organizations: lessons from California. Policy Studies Journal 27:544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thomas J. C. 1995. Public participation in public decisions: new skills and strategies for public managers. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 211 ppGoogle Scholar
  62. Thompson L., R. Hastie. 1990a. Judgment tasks and biases in negotiation. Research on Negotiation in Organization 2:31–54Google Scholar
  63. Thompson L., R. Hastie. 1990b. Social perception in negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47:98–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tyler T. R. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:850–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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 13:253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Webler T., S. Tuler. 2001. Public participation in watershed management planning: views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review 8:29–39Google Scholar
  67. Webler T., S. Tuler, R. Krueger. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webler T., S. Tuler, I. Shockey, P. Stern, R. Beattie. 2003. Participation by local government officials in watershed management planning. Society and Natural Resources 16:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams E. M., P. V. Ellefson. 1997. Going into partnership to manage a landscape. Journal of Forestry 95:29–33Google Scholar
  70. Wondolleck J. M., S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC, 277 ppGoogle Scholar
  71. Woolley J. T., M. V. McGinnis. 2000. The conflicting discourses of restoration. Society and Natural Resources 13:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zartman I. W. 1985. Ripe for resolution: conflict and intervention in Africa. Oxford University Press, New York, 260 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Rangeland, & Watershed StewardshipColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations