Public Participationin Forest Planning

(1'7 Attributes of Success

By Bruce Shindler and Julie Neburka

F

ederal ecosystem and adaptive man-agement programs encourage collabo-ration with local forest communities.

Such programs offer opportunities not onlyto experiment with approaches to forestmanagement but also to capitalize on localknowledge and build support for manage-ment decisions. But for natural resourcesprofessionals, questions persist. What do wewant from the public? What do they expectfrom us? How do we do public participa-tion? What would a successful participatoryprocess look like?

These same questions confronted theimplementation team of the Central Cas-cades Adaptive Management Area on Ore-gon's Willamette National Forest. Oneplace to look for answers was the publicparticipation efforts of the not-so-distantpast. We consulted with Forest Service per-sonnel and local citizens to examineprocesses previouslyundertaken on theWillamette andlearn from their ex-periences about thesuccess and pitfallsof agency-public in-teractions.

Comparative analysisAn often-cited problem with learning how to

conduct public processes is that every commu-nity is different, and each situation is unique.What works under certain conditions may notbe relevant in other situations. In comparing fivelong-term planning processes that occurred be-tween 1989 and 1995, therefore, we looked forcommon elements that stood out across settings.The groups varied from one organized to exam-ine and advise on the forest's timber sale pro-gram to one that developed a new managementplan for three designated wilderness areas.

We interviewed 31 citizen and USDA For-est Service participants and asked for their bestrecollections of what had happened in thosegroups. Many were veterans of a range of For-est Service public meetings. We noted obsta-cles and frustrations but were particularly in-terested in those attributes that contributed topositive interactions or outcomes. Within

each public processwe found elementsthat were consistentlyconnected with suc-cess, along with otherelements that were al-most always cited ascounterproductive.

"Successful groupefforts have to besmall and localplaces where thewar won't be won

or lost."

Journal of Forestry 17

Groups whose members are selected fortheir understanding of the issues and will-ingness to commit to a group process aremore effective. Establishing ground rules for theselection process helped achieve what one agencystaffer called a "representative, committed groupwith balance and fairness."

Handpicking participants is not always an op-tion, but in several cases group organizers used acriteria-based application process conducted bythe interest groups themselves, rather than basingmembership solely on interest group affiliationand ending up with individuals who tended torepresent positions. The criteria in this creativestrategy included knowledge of the relevant issues(not merely an interest in them), willingness toactively participate, and commitment to a year'sworth of meetings. Application forms also in-cluded rules and expectations about participation.

From a practical stand-point, staffers noted thatthe approach meant "wedidn't have to work withjust whoever showed upeach night." Having a sta-ble, ongoing group elimi-nated the time spent ateach meeting bringing newmembers up to speed.

Meetings are much more productive ifstructured to promote full group interac-tion, rather than simple information shar-ing and feedback. Potential participants wantto make a difference, not be subjected to whatone colleague describes as the "three Is of federalpublic involvement: Inform, solicit Input, thenIgnore." Unfortunately, that's not just a smartquip. People frequently complained of toomany meetings conducted as "fishing expedi-tions," convened only for the purpose of con-veying information. One citizen member char-acterized her experience as being "talked at 90percent of the time." Another observed a short-coming in her group's communication by not-ing "the Forest Service talked to us, we talked tothem, but we citizen members never talked toeach other." Perhaps one individual spoke formany when he said, "I am not interested in at-tending a never-ending series of meetings if theyare just supposed to make me feel better becauseI was involved."

The message seems clear: when inviting thecommunity to participate, natural resource agen-cies must define and articulate their reasons for in-volving the public and then make good on their

commitment. Participants told us this must in-clude "sincere and genuine leadership, not neces-sarily meetings conducted by polished facilitators."In the most successful cases, outside facilitatorswere quickly jettisoned and replaced by "regular,honest people with whom the group felt morecomfortable." Leaders who were good listeners—but kept the group from straying by remindingthem of their mission—were highly valued.

A group whose purpose is defined andwhose end product is identified at the out-set is inherently more successful. One For-est Service member attributed his group's successto "knowing what your objectives are when start-ing the process and knowing why you are in-volving people and using their time." Whengroups begin with a jointly identified commonfocus, their success can be measured by meeting

objectives and then rein-forced by seeing results oftheir efforts on the ground.

The obverse appears tobe true, too. "We were notsuccessful because we didn'tstart out to be successful,"was how one frustrated par-ticipant characterized hisexperience. Citizens whovolunteer are largely task

oriented, but many find it difficult to contributein a poorly conceived public involvement processwhere clarifying roles and identifying goals are notalways part of the agenda.

Groups in which the decisionmaker has aregular presence believe their contribu-tions are taken more seriously by theagency. For many participants, the active in-volvement of the decisionmaker was an impor-tant indicator of the value of their work. In fact,citizens from one study group stated they wouldnot have participated if the forest supervisor hadnot attended their meetings. Participation bythe district ranger or the forest supervisorhelped legitimize the efforts of the entire group.Successful groups took their work more seri-ously, knowing that their recommendationswere relied on and used.

The flip side of that successful element was thecomplaint of some participants that their com-ments or suggestions were not incorporated intostaff reports. They wondered "where the informa-tion came from" that did make it into planningdocuments. The concern here seems to be trustand confidence in agency follow-through.

"Unless the group's job isclosely defined, meetings

waste people's time,energy, and good will."

18 January 1997

ader was not a

blic speaker, but

incere, and he

s on track."

"Our le

great pu

he was s

kept u

Working with current and reliable informa-tion adds considerably to a credible process.Having sound scientific data that inform the deci-sionmaking process is not a new idea. That man-agers and citizens together analyze information toform alternatives, however, may be a more ground-breaking notion. Such efforts required substantialresources, such as updated inventories, field moni-toring, and GIS layers, but everyone agreed thepayoff from accurate, trust-worthy information washigh. In addition, staffersrecognized that "it providedthe agency with an opportu-nity to really learn about itsown data." From a citizen'sperspective, support of thiskind upped the ante for par-ticipation. One group mem-ber reflected, "We took meet-ing preparation as a serious responsibility becausewe knew we were given good information andwould have a chance to discuss it."

The "care and feeding" of participants is im-portant. Often-overlooked common courtesies,such as advance distribution of meeting notes andwritten materials, mean a great deal to volunteers.Defining terms early on also helped; addressingquestions like "What's a riparian zone?" got every-one working at a similar level. Prompt and directanswers to citizen members' questions added to theagency's credibility. One person remembered,"There was not excessive control over resource spe-cialists in our group; they didn't look over at theforest supervisor or district ranger before they an-swered our questions." Finally, providing drinksand snacks at lengthy meetings was uniformlypraised as an indication that the agency caredabout the group and its work.

The experience of getting to know "the otherside" is beneficial to outcomes. Although acri-mony was often a factor at many meetings, the cu-mulative effects of group experience should not beundersold. Participants repeatedly emphasized howtheir positions softened as they got to know others atthe table and realized that their personal concernswere often common concerns. One individual evensaid the sole success of his group lay in "building re-lationships." The most successful groups were thosewhose members could talk freely, thus learning theintent behind each other's positions.

The Forest Service has used these improved rela-tionships as building blocks for other public forums.In some cases, citizen participants have formed

loosely knit coalitions with "allies in other camps" toaddress problems more effectively on their own.

Willingness to filter out "noise" from na-tional interest groups can help participantsstay focused on their common goals. Distin-guishing the local issue from larger national con-cerns was important. In the words of one member,"It's easier to get something done if you can fly

below the radar screen of thenational interest groups."

Long-time area resi-dents often had consider-ably more experience withthe local landscape than thedistrict ranger or represen-tatives of national interestgroups. For local people,success was measured bythe extent to which their

own ideas and concerns were given serious con-sideration and the agenda was not driven by fed-eral agency politics or national debates.

Where issues have become high-profile and na-tional groups have staked out their positions, how-ever, local public participation efforts may notwork, and natural resources managers may neednew, improved models for public participation de-signed to build consensus.

The eight attributes of success represent a ratherstraightforward, almost intuitive set of sensibleguidelines for citizen involvement. As many par-ticipants acknowledged, however, in the heat ofpublic decisionmaking it was easy to become dis-tracted and forgo the important elements that con-tributed to productive outcomes. Moreover, nosingle group process could be termed an absolutemodel for success. Nevertheless, from a learningstandpoint, we should not overlook the commonmessage: that basic organizational skills, attentionto detail, commitment to constituents, and goodleadership—all things people normally expectfrom our natural resources agencies—often meanthe difference between success and frustration. Era

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Bruce Shindler is assistant professor, Department ofForest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis97331; Julie Neburka is researcher, Legislative Policyand Research Office, State of Oregon, Salem. Supportfor their research was provided by the Cascade Centerfor Ecosystem Management, USDA Forest Service, andthe People and Natural Resource Program, USDA For-est Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Journal of Forestry 19