Advertisement

Group Decision-Making and Participatory Planning

  • Annika Kangas
  • Mikko Kurttila
  • Teppo Hujala
  • Kyle Eyvindson
  • Jyrki Kangas
Chapter
  • 909 Downloads
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 30)

Abstract

The use of public participation has become common in many forest management planning situations. In this chapter, we define the concepts of participatory planning and group decision-making, as well as stakeholder and decision-maker. We describe the purposes and potential benefits of participatory planning, for the participating stakeholders and for the organisations applying the approach in their planning processes. We present the definitions for different levels of participation and discuss how a suitable participation process for different types of planning cases could be designed. We discuss the importance of facilitation and describe different facilitator roles in supporting group decision-making. We also present criteria that may be used to measure the success of participation.

Keywords

Delegation of power Conflict management Awareness raising Transparency of planning Acceptability Social learning Collaborative planning methods 

References

  1. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute Planners, 35, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleiker, A., & Bleiker, H. (1995). Public participation handbook for officials and other professionals serving the public (9th ed.). Monterey: Institute for Participatory Management and Planning.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, A., & Halseth, G. (2011). Why the public thinks natural resources public participation processes fail: A case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use Policy, 28, 898–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390–413). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchy, M., & Hoverman, S. (2000). Understanding public participation in forest planning: A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33, 2685–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14, 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (1996). Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. English, M., Gibson, A., Feldman, D., & Tonn, B. (1993). Stakeholder involvement: Open process for reaching decisions about future uses of contaminated sites. Final report to the US Department of energy. University of Tennessee. Knoxville: Waste management Research and Education Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Resources management (ERM). (1995). Manual on public participation for investors in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Final report to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. London: Environmental Resources Management.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  12. Garcia Pérez, J. D., & Groome, H. (2000). Spanish forestry planning dilemmas: Technocracy and participation. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Germain, R. H., Floyd, D. W., & Stehman, S. V. (2001). Public perceptions of the USDA forest service public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics, 3, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 180–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heberlein, T. A. (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
  16. Hellström, E. (1997). Environmental forest conflicts from a international comparative point of view. In B. Solberg & M. Miina (Eds.), Conflict management and public participation in land management (EFI proceedings no. 14). Joensuu: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Hiltunen, V. (2012). Developing decision support in participatory strategic forest planning in Metsähallitus. Dissertationes Forestales 141. University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences. 47 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Hjortsø, N. C. (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR – An application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 667–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2013). Supporting problem structuring with computer-based tools in participatory forest planning. Forest Systems, 22(2), 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hytönen, L. A. (2000). Osallistamismenetelmät metsätalouden päätöksenteossa. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 3/2000, 443–456.Google Scholar
  21. International Labour Office. (2000). Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee Team of Specialists on participation in Forestry. International Labour Office, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. Janse, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2007). Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry – Experiences from the Neighbourhoods project. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kangas, J. (1994). An approach to public participation in strategic forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management, 70, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kangas, J., & Store, R. (2003). Internet and teledemocracy in participatory planning of natural resource management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., Pukkala, T., & Pykäläinen, J. (1996). A participatory approach to tactical forest planning (Acta Forestalia Fennica, Vol. 251). Helsinki: Finnish Forest Research Institute. 24 p.Google Scholar
  26. Kangas, A., Haapakoski, R., & Tyrväinen, L. (2008). Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning – Case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland. Silva Fennica, 42, 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L. A., Hujala, T., & Tikkanen, J. (2010). Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kangas, A., Heikkilä, J., Malmivaara-Lämsä, M., & Löfström, I. (2014). Case Puijo – Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process. Forest Policy and Economics, 45, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kangas, A., Rasinmäki, J., Eyvindson, K., & Chamber, P. (2015). A mobile phone application for the collection of opinion data for forest planning purposes. Environmental Management, 55, 961–971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Khadka, C., Hujala, T., Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2013). Problem structuring in participatory forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 26(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, I., & Buttound, G. (2006). Assessment of an iterative process: The double spriral of re-designing participation. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawrence, R. L., & Deagen, D. A. (2001). Choosing public participation methods for natural resources: A context-specific guide. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCool, S. F., & Guthrie, K. (2001). Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situation. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menzel, A., Nordström, E.-M., Buchecker, M., Marques, A., Saarikoski, H., & Kangas, A. (2012). Decision support systems in forest management: Requirements from a participatory planning perspective. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(5), 1367–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metsien suojelun osallistavat prosessit Suomessa. Sidosryhmien osallistuminen prosesseihin. (2006). Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön raportteja. 50 p.Google Scholar
  36. Myllyviita, T., Hujala, T., Kangas, A., Eyvindson, K., Sironen, S., Leskinen, P., & Kurttila, M. (2014). Mixing methods – Assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.859297.Google Scholar
  37. Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Primmer, E., & Kyllönen, S. (2006). Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 838–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pykäläinen, J., Kangas, J., & Loikkanen, T. (1999). Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: Experiences from State owned boreal forests. Journal of Forest Economics, 5, 341–364.Google Scholar
  40. Rantanen, H., & Kahila, M. (2009). The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1981–1990.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Riedel, J. A. (1972). Citizen participation: Myths and realities. Public Administration Review, 32, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saarikoski, H., Tikkanen, J., & Leskinen, L. A. (2010). Public participation in practice — Assessing public participation in the preparation of regional forest programs in Northern Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(5), 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sipilä, M., & Tyrväinen, L. (2005). Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Susskind, L., & Cruishank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Tikkanen, J. (1996). Taajametsien osallistava suunnittelu. Kokemuksia MetsäRaahe –suunnitteluprojektista. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 603.Google Scholar
  47. Tikkanen, J. (2003). Alueellisen metsäohjelmatyön osallistamismenettely Pohjois-Suomen metsäkeskuksissa vuosina 1997–1998 ja 2000–2001. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 3/2003, 321–344.Google Scholar
  48. Tippett, J., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development – A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning, 67, 9–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tuler, S., & Weber, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: What participants expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. UNECE. (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. New York: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar
  51. Vacik, H., Kurttila, M., Hujala, T., Khadka, C., Haara, A., Pykäläinen, J., Honkakoski, P., Wolfslehner, B., & Tikkanen, J. (2014). Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 304–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Van den Bos, K., Lind, K. E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (1988). Managing participation in organizations. Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall. 239 p.Google Scholar
  54. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wallenius, P. (2001). Osallistava strateginen suunnittelu julkisten luonnonvarojen hoidossa. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 41.Google Scholar
  56. Webler, T. (1997). Organizing public participation: A critical review of three handbooks. Human Ecology Review, 3, 245–254.Google Scholar
  57. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2001). Public participation in watershed management planning: Views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review, 8, 29–39.Google Scholar
  58. Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27, 435–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Kangas
    • 1
  • Mikko Kurttila
    • 2
  • Teppo Hujala
    • 3
  • Kyle Eyvindson
    • 4
  • Jyrki Kangas
    • 5
  1. 1.Economics and SocietyNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)JoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Bio-based Business and IndustryNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)JoensuuFinland
  3. 3.Bio-based Business and IndustryNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)HelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  5. 5.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations