Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results of Community Deliberation About Social Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Comparing Public Input of Self-Selected Versus Actively Engaged Community Members

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Participatory processes for obtaining residents’ input about community impacts of proposed environmental management actions have long raised concerns about who participates in public involvement efforts and whose interests they represent. This study explored methods of broad-based involvement and the role of deliberation in social impact assessment. Interactive community forums were conducted in 27 communities to solicit public input on proposed alternatives for recovering wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest US. Individuals identified by fellow residents as most active and involved in community affairs (“AE residents”) were invited to participate in deliberations about likely social impacts of proposed engineering and ecological actions such as dam removal. Judgments of these AE participants about community impacts were compared with the judgments of residents motivated to attend a forum out of personal interest, who were designated as self-selected (“SS”) participants. While the magnitude of impacts rated by SS participants across all communities differed significantly from AE participants’ ratings, in-depth analysis of results from two community case studies found that both AE and SS participants identified a large and diverse set of unique impacts, as well as many of the same kinds of impacts. Thus, inclusion of both kinds of residents resulted in a greater range of impacts for consideration in the environmental impact study. The case study results also found that the extent to which similar kinds of impacts are specified by AE and SS group members can differ by type of community. Study results caution against simplistic conclusions drawn from this approach to community-wide public participation. Nonetheless, the results affirm that deliberative methods for community-based impact assessment involving both AE and SS residents can provide a more complete picture of perceived impacts of proposed restoration activities.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

  • Albrecht SL, Thompson JG (1988) The place of attitudes and perceptions in social impact assessment. Society and Natural Resources 1:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen PT (1998) Public participation in resolving environmental disputes and the problem of representativeness. RISK: Health, Safety and Environment 9:297–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen LR, Gibson R (1987) Perceptions of community life and services: a comparison between leaders and community residents. Journal of the Community Development Society 18(1):89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony ML, Knuth BA, Lauber TB (2004) Gender and citizen participation in wildlife management decision making. Society and Natural Resources 17:395–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker DR, Harris CC, McLaughlin WJ, Nielsen EA (2003) A participatory approach to social impact assessment: The interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(3):367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris CC, Nielsen EA, McLaughlin WJ, Becker DR (2003) Innovative community assessments for sustainable resource management: The case of salmon-recovery on the lower Snake River. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(2):109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Authors. Inclusion of diverse citizen roles in public deliberation: implications for social impact assessment (In preparation)

  • Bauer I, Thomas K (2006) An evaluation of community and corporate bias in assessment tools. International Social Science Journal 58:501–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry JM, Portney KE, Bablitch MB, Mahoney R (1997) Public involvement in administration: the structural determinants of effective citizen participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 13:7–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Blahna DJ (1990) Social bases for resource conflicts in areas of reverse migration, Chap. 12. In: Lee RG, Field DR, Burch WR (eds) Community and forestry: continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch WR (1976) Who participates—a sociological interpretation of natural resource decisions. Natural Resources Journal 16:41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Burningham K (1995) Attitudes, accounts and impact assessment. Sociological Review 43:100–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng AS, Mattor KM (2006) Why won’t they come? Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national forest planning by participation level. Environmental Management 38(4):545–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq AL (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine DJ (1999) Effects of cognitive ability, task knowledge, information sharing, and conflict on group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research 30:608–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek J (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Echabe AE, Castro JG (1999) Group discussion and changes in attitudes and representations. Journal of Social Psychology 139:29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsasser P (2007) Do “stakeholders” represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany. Forest Policy and Economics 9:1018–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endter-Wada J, Blahna DJ, Krannich R, Brunson M (1998) Framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 8(3):891–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15:226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick P, Sinclair JA, Mitchell B (2008) Environmental impact assessment under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act: deliberative democracy in Canada’s North? Environmental Management 42:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigone D, Hastie R (1993) The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:959–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy KG, Heberlien TA (1984) Do public meetings represent the public? Journal of the American Planning Association 50(2):175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halvorsen KE (2006) Critical next steps in research on public meetings and environmental decision making. Human Ecology Review 13:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward G, Diduck A, Mitchell B (2007) Social learning outcomes in the Red River Floodway Environmental Assessment. Environmental Practice 9:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlien TA (1976) Some observations on alternative mechanisms for public involvement: the hearing, public opinion poll, the workshop and the quasi-experiment. Natural Resources Journal 16:197–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall BK, Jones RE (2005) Citizen participation in natural resources management: does representativeness matter? Sociological Spectrum 25:715–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas KA (2001) Public meetings about local waste management problems: comparing participants to nonparticipants. Environmental Management 27(1):135–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McComas KA, Scherer CW (1998) Reassessing public meetings as participation in risk management decisions. RISK: Health, Safety, and Environment 9(4):347–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostert E, Pahl-Wostl C, Rees Y, Searle B, Tabara D, Tippett J (2007) Social learning in European river-basin management: barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society 12(1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/. Accessed 30 June 2007

  • Muro M (2008) The role of social learning in participatory planning and management of water resources. Doctoral dissertation. Cranfield University, Cranfield

  • Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5(3):325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkins JR, Mitchell RE (2005) Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 18:529–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts J (2003) Barriers to deliberative participation in EIA: learning from waste policies, plans and projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 5(3):269–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggie JJ (1972) Toward quality control in key informant data. Human Organization 31(1):23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Presthus R (1964) Men at the top: a study in community power. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Redburn S, Buss TF, Foster SK, Binning WC (1980) How representative are mandated citizen participation processes? Urban Affairs Quarterly 15(3):345–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed M (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer L (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarikowski H (2000) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:681–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savatski PD (1981) Leadership generated community social profiles. In: Finsterbusch K, Wolf CP (eds) Methodology of social impact assessment. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidler J (1974) On using informants: a technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review 39:816–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MD, Krannich RS (2000) “Culture clash” revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes towards land uses, development, and environmental issues in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology 65:396–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soucy A (2000) The problem with key informants. Anthropological Forum 10(2):179–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP, Sinclair AJ (2007) Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 9(2):161–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart DD, Stasser G (1995) Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:619–628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stolp A, Groen W, van Vliet J, Vanclay F (2002) Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value judgments in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(1):11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stronza A, Gordillo J (2008) Community views of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 35:448–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuler S, Webler T (1999) Designing an analytic deliberative process for environmental health policy making in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. RISK: Health, Safety, and Environment 10(1):65–87

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Final lower Snake River juvenile salmon migration feasibility report/ environmental impact statement. Walla Walla District Office, US Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla. http://www.nww.army.mil/lsr/lsrmain.htm. Accessed 16 sept 2010

  • Webler T, Tuler S (2000) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration and Society 32:566–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1:443–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welton M (2001) Civil society and the public sphere: Habermas’s recent learning theory. Studies in the Education of Adults 33:20–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhill AJ (2004) Dialogue and transboundary water resources management: Towards a framework for facilitating social learning. In: Langaas S, Timmerman JG (eds) The role and use of information in European transboundary river basin management. IWA Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Young FW, Young RC (1962) Key informant reliability in rural Mexican villages. Human Organization 20:141–148

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An early version of this article was drafted and data collected with funding provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA; support for further analysis of those data and development of the current article was provided by the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow , ID 83844-1139, USA

    Charles C. Harris

  2. School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

    Erik A. Nielsen

  3. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

    Dennis R. Becker

  4. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Seattle, WA, USA

    Dale J. Blahna

  5. College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA

    William J. McLaughlin

Authors
  1. Charles C. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik A. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dennis R. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dale J. Blahna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William J. McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles C. Harris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, C.C., Nielsen, E.A., Becker, D.R. et al. Results of Community Deliberation About Social Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Comparing Public Input of Self-Selected Versus Actively Engaged Community Members. Environmental Management 50, 191–203 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9871-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9871-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation