RESEARCH Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning

MARGARET A. MOOTE MITCHEL P. MCCLARAN* DONNA K. CHICKERING School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA ABSTRACT / Application of participatory democracy theory to public participation in public land planning, while widely advocated, has not been closely examined. A case study is used here to explicate the application of participatory democracy concepts to public participation in public land planning and decision making. In this case, a Bureau of Land Management resource area manager decided to make a significant shift from the traditional public involvement process to a more participatory methodcoordinated resource management (CRM). This case was assessed using document analysis, direct observation of CRM meetings, questionnaires, and interviews of key participants. These sources were used to examine the CRM case using participatory democracy concepts of efficacy, access and representation, continuous participation throughout planning, information exchange and learning, and decision-making authority. The case study suggests that social deliberation in itself does not ensure successful collaboration and that establishing rules of operation and decision making within the group is critical. Furthermore, conflicts between the concept of shared decision-making authority and the public land management agencies accountability to Congress, the President, and the courts need further consideration.

Traditional public participation methods utilized by the public land management agencies have been criticized for allowing the agencies to nominally meet their statutory requirements for public involvement while effectively continuing to dispense predetermined management decisions. Critics complain that traditional methods such as formal hearings and comment periods do not address public concerns because they: (1) do not provide an adequate forum for representing public interests, (2) exclude the general public in favor of polarized interest groups, and (3) do not allow for adequate information exchange between the public and agency professionals (ACIR 1979, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989, Facaros 1989, Feller 1991, Fortmann and Lewis 1987, Wondolleck 1985, 1988a). Furthermore, the public does not support administrative decisions and frequently challenges them through appeals and/or lawsuits to delay their implementation (Brown 1993, Wondolleck 1988a). In response to the administrative standstill effected by appeals and litigation, land management agencies and their critics are increasingly turning to a participatory democracy approach to public participation based in social discourse and collaboration (Blahna and

KEY WORDS: Case study; Coordinated resource management; Public participation; Administrative discretion; Representation; Consensus; Collaboration *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Yonts-Shepard 1989, Knopp and Caldbeck 1990, Kweit and Kweit 1987, Reich 1990, Selin and Chavez 1995, Shannon 1990a, 1992a,b, Sirmon and others 1993, Tanz and Howard 1991, Tipple and Wellman 1989). In a participatory democracy approach, a broad range of interests are represented and participants are integrally involved throughout the planning processes, from initiation through decision implementation and monitoring (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989). Education is promoted through a collective learning process where all participants acquire and share information and all participants accept responsibility for policy decisions (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992, Shannon 1992a,b). These characteristics of a participatory democracy approach to public participation are said to facilitate decision implementation by resolving conicts during the planning process, rather than delaying implementation of completed plans while decisions are reviewed through appeals and adjudication (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). The application of participatory democracy approaches to public participation in public land planning, while widely advocated, has received little critical empirical examination. Critical evaluation is important to: (1) identify the strengths and weaknesses of participatory democracy approaches to public participation, and (2) examine the applicability of the theoretical premises that underly such approaches. To assess the application of participatory democracy approaches to public participation, we developed a set of evaluative

Environmental Management Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 877889

1997 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

878

M. A. Moote and others

Table 1. criteria
Issue Efficacy

Public participation issues and evaluative

Evaluative criteria Groups and individuals interested in or affected by public land decisions report that the resultant plan addresses their needs, concerns, and values, and they will not appeal it. Everyone who might be affected by or have an interest in the plan is involved, particularly nonactivist, nonaligned members of the public. Access is provided through informal forums that give everyone an opportunity to voice their needs and concerns. Agency representatives strive to make people feel comfortable and respected. All interests are encouraged to discuss their needs, concerns, and values in informal, multidirectional exchanges. Active dialogue improves everyones understanding of the range of values, interests, and concerns. Collective revision and renement of goals, objectives, and decision-making criteria is encouraged. The public is involved continuously throughout all stages of planning and decision making. Decision-making authority is explicitly shared among all participants, with agencies holding no exclusive decisionmaking authority.

Efficacy Efficacy, as used here, is the extent to which a public participation process fosters public support of a land management decision and thereby expedites implementation of that decision. It is reected in public reactions to the decision, which may be found from direct verbal reporting by members of the public as to whether the decision addresses their needs and concerns, and inferred from public behaviors relating to the decision. Critics of the traditional approach to public participation in public land planning and decision making point to the publics extensive use of appeals and lawsuits to block implementation of land management plans as evidence that the rational planning approach utilized by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fails to produce decisions that address the full range of the publics needs and concerns (Brown 1993, Fortmann and Lewis 1987, Wondolleck 1985, 1988a). Excessive use of appeals and lawsuits has delayed plan implementation to the extent that the efficacy of the entire planning process has been questioned (Behan 1990, Floyd 1988). A participatory democracy approach suggests that administrative decisions will be more acceptable to the citizenry if they are made through a collaborative process that builds community and shared understanding, and therefore overcomes societal divisiveness and polarization (Kemmis 1990, Shannon 1992a, Wondolleck 1988b). The basic premise is that citizens will support the government only if they have voluntarily associated with it and feel it is generally responsive to their interests (Tipple and Wellman 1989). The participatory democracy approach is said to improve decision implementation by resolving conicts during the planning process, rather than delaying implementation of completed plans while decisions are reviewed through appeals and adjudication (Blackburn 1988, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987, Pateman 1970). In terms of public participation in public land planning, therefore, efficacy can be measured by citizens verbal agreement that the resultant plan addresses their needs, concerns, and values and inferred from the absence of appeals and lawsuits led against the completed plan. Representation and Access Rather than eliciting participation from as representative a sample of the public as possible, traditional agency public participation procedures tend to foster participation by organized interest groups while limiting participation by the general public (Facaros 1989, Shannon 1990b). For instance, Fortmann and Lewis (1987) found participation of local residents in the

Representation and access

Information exchange and learning

Continuity of participation Decision-making authority

criteria, based on a review of the public participation and participatory democracy literature. The application of these evaluative criteria to one case is discussed in this article.

A Participatory Democracy Model of Public Participation

We have categorized the criticisms of the traditional public participation process utilized by public land management agencies into ve issues and identied a participatory democracy interpretation of each issue. The rst issueefficacyrelates to achieving desired results. The other fourrepresentation and access, information exchange and learning, continuity of participation, and decision-making authorityrelate to the process of achieving those results. The participatory democracy approach to addressing each of the ve issues form the evaluative criteria used in this study (Table 1).

Theory in Practice

879

comment process tends to be highly skewed, . . . [and] by its very nature [leads] almost inevitably not to participation but to enrollment with polarizing effects. Potential participants may not identify with the polarized viewpoints. At least one comparative survey (Knopp and Caldbeck 1990) has found the general public to be more moderate than either a natural resource agency or interest groups. In another survey, Lyden and others (1990) found that participants in Forest Service planning who did not identify with specic interest groups had more moderate views and a more realistic impression of agency biases than those who did. The formal procedures utilized by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for public participation have been criticized repeatedly for limiting public access to agency planning processes (Blahna and YontsShepard 1989, ACIR 1979). Whether or not government actions are considered to be in the public good, citizens want access to the decision-making process to ensure that their interests are represented (Arnstein 1969, Achterman and Fairfax 1979, ACIR 1979). Fortmann and Lewis (1987) found that statements at public hearings and written comments on draft plans, two established methods of eliciting public comment, tend to exclude people uncomfortable about public speaking or formal letter-writing. The nancial and time requirements of planning are frequently cited as barriers to public participation, as well (Amy 1987, Carpenter and Kennedy 1988). Participatory democracy theory supports the argument for increased involvement by the general, nonactivist public in administrative decision making. Blahna and Yonts-Shepard (1989) stress that while representative public involvement means working closely with leaders of key interests, . . . participatory public involvement requires the involvement of nonrepresented members of the public. According to participatory democracy theory, what appears to be public apathy toward administrative governance is actually citizens rational evaluations of the costs and benets of participating in traditional planning and decision making (Kweit and Kweit 1987, Pateman 1970). The general public nds its attempts at meaningful participation hampered by the class bias and technical bias typical of agency officials, as well as the domination of traditional public hearings by unrepresentative interest groups (Kathlene and Martin 1991). Under a participatory democracy approach to public participation, representatives of all affected interests are encouraged to participate in the planning process, including members of the general, nonaligned public. Access is provided through informal forums that give everyone an opportunity to voice their needs and

concerns (Sirmon and others 1993). The primary role of the administrator in a participatory democracy is to act as a teacher and guide to facilitate social learning and public deliberation (Cooper 1984, Shannon 1990b, 1992a, Reich 1990, Tipple and Wellman 1989). Information Exchange and Learning The public participation techniques most frequently used by the Forest Service are one-way communications, such as formal statements at hearings and written correspondence (Cheng and others 1993, Wondolleck 1985, 1988b, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989). Such techniques preclude dialogue and support the impression that administrators consider information and learning to be things that the public needs and that the agency has to offer. Wondolleck (1985) found there is seldom opportunity for affected groups and individuals . . . to clarify or expand their concerns, or to correct inappropriate responses to the issues they raised. Participants have also expressed frustration because they nd little evidence that their opinions have been seriously considered (Lyden and others 1990, Shannon 1990b, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989). Furthermore, lack of adequate information exchange has been cited as a cause of polarization and adversarial positions among interest groups (Lyden and others 1990, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989). From a participatory democracy perspective, full and free interchange between the people and their elected representatives, as well as between the people and appointed administrators, clearly is essential to responsible and well-informed public decision-making and to responsive government (ACIR 1979). Active dialogue allows the needs and concerns of each interested group or individual to be addressed during the planning process, and permits the various participants to gain an understanding of each others values, interests, and concerns, as well as the legal and policy constraints on agency decision making (Wondolleck 1985, 1988b). In addition to improving the information base upon which decisions are made, improved dialogue is said to aid participants in the revision and renement of their own values and interests (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992, Reich 1985). In terms of public land planning, such a process can aid in collective denition of goals, objectives, and decision-making criteria (Shannon 1990b). Continuity of Participation Typically, public input to agency planning takes place only at formal meetings held at the beginning and end of the planning process, or through written correspondence (Shannon 1990b, Blahna and Yonts-Shepard

880

M. A. Moote and others

1989, Facaros 1989). The sporadic nature of traditional public participation limits public input to the planning process. Participatory democracy theory, on the other hand, views public participation as not a one-shot affair but a continuing network of interaction with others (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992). Continuous feedback from participants is said to ensure that their evolving interests are adequately reected in policy decisions (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992, Pateman 1970). In terms of public land planning, therefore, participation should be initiated at the beginning of the planning process and maintained throughout, especially when key decisions are being made (Blahna and YontsShepard 1989). Thus, public involvement becomes a continuous process, no longer a series of discrete events (Behan 1988). Decision-Making Authority Traditional public participation procedures keep public input well removed from administrative decision making, thereby protecting the agencies administrative discretion. This is in keeping with the traditional, progressive ideal of neutral public administration and positive science (Reich 1985). In this ideal, public policies are generally perceived as being best pursued through broad discretionary authority to implement policies in the most efficient and effective manner possible, particularly where the decisions to be made involve technical or scientic analyses (Bryner 1987). On the other hand, critics of the traditional approach to public administration contend that public policy decisions are ultimately social value choices, which government agencies cannot effectively make without signicant public participation (Wondolleck 1988a, Shannon 1992b, Paelke 1987). From a participatory democracy perspective, in order to ensure that the public interest is reected in agency actions, the public should actually participate in the making of nal decisions, not just be given the opportunity to comment on proposed decisions (Arnstein 1969, Kweit and Kweit 1987, Shannon 1990a). Direct public participation in administrative decision making is considered necessary to ensure the agencies accountability to the public (Tipple and Wellman 1989). Under a participatory democracy approach, administrators give up some discretion and agree to share decisionmaking authority with other participants (Cleary and Phillippi 1993, Kweit and Kweit 1987). In return, participants share responsibility for the successful implementation of decisions (Selin and Chavez 1995).

Application of the Alternative Approach: A Case Study

Coordinated resource management (CRM) is an approach to integrated resource planning and management that utilizes planning teams made up of agency representatives, landowners, interest groups, and members of the general public that, in theory, ts the participatory democracy model of public administration in public land management. CRM requires both active participation [by] representatives from all landowner[s], interest groups, and resource administering agencies within the dened management area (MOU 1987), and stipulates that all affected interests should be given the opportunity to express their values [and] viewpoints on objectives, problems and alternatives (Cleary and Phillippi 1993). Information exchange and learning as well as continuity are promoted by creating a team of participants who work together as a unit throughout planning and decision making; this allows each member to listen and contribute to the development of the rationale upon which each decision is made [and] eliminates unilateral decision-making (Anderson and Baum 1988). Finally, CRM requires decision making through consensus to ensure representation of each group participant in the nal decision (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM 1985). To achieve these goals, the Society for Range Management has developed a formal organizational CRM structure (Cleary and Phillippi 1993). We applied the evaluative criteria for the ve public participation issues (Table 1) to one application of CRM and use the results to elucidate the participatory democracy approach to public participation in public land planning.

Research Methods
The research design for this case study follows an ethnographic approach, which is recommended for detailed analysis of a single case and for analysis of human interactions and complex group processes (Atkinson and Hammersley 1994, Goetz and LeCompte 1984, Miles and Huberman 1994). The primary ethnographic research method is participant observation, which is used to acquire rst-hand accounts of interactions as they occur in real-world settings (Atkinson and Hammersley 1994, Goetz and LeCompte 1984). In this study, additional data collection techniques used include questionnaires, interviewing, and document analysis. These methods were used to triangulate the data, i.e., to evaluate the same phenomena using different research methods in order to corroborate research

Theory in Practice

881

ndings (Miles and Huberman 1994, Goetz and LeCompte 1984). For example, the follow-up interviews and results of participant observation were used to corroborate and clarify questionnaire ndings, thereby reducing the risk of bias due to questionnaire nonresponse. This technique of using different methods for triangulation has a long history in naturalistic inquiry (Webb and others 1966) and is commonly used to improve the probability that the ndings and interpretations in such an inquiry will be found credible, or in the words of the conventional research paradigm, internally valid (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Initial data were obtained through: (1) direct observation of CRM group meetings over a one-year period; (2) document analysis of newspaper articles, materials distributed at CRM meetings, minutes of CRM meetings, and other written material generated by the CRM group; and (3) periodic informal interviews with the BLM resource area manager, a key participant in the process. Preliminary ndings were triangulated using a questionnaire with both Likert-type and open-ended questions that was distributed to all CRM participants attending meetings in late 1993 and 1994 (Moote 1995). Sixty-one questionnaires were issued and 42 responses were received (69% response rate). Detailed interviews of eight key participants, selected by the snowball sampling method (Bailey 1978), were then used to triangulate earlier conclusions as well as questionnaire results.

Case History
In 1992, public outrage erupted over a BLM plan to acquire riparian lands along the San Pedro River in southern Arizona. Some citizens claimed that the traditional BLM planning process for the local resource management plan had not given them adequate input to the acquisition decision and threatened a lawsuit to force the agency to address their concerns. In response, the BLM offered to reevaluate its acquisition plan, utilizing an alternative, more participatory, decisionmaking processCRM. In the initial three-day meeting held in August 1992, however, the San Pedro CRM group rejected the formal CRM process developed by the Society for Range Management in favor of a less bureaucratic one. The group did, however, adopt the four cardinal rules of the Society for Range Managements CRM process: decision making by consensus, participant commitment to the success of the program, broad involvement by all interested parties, and expressing needs not positions. The San Pedro CRM group met twice monthly for four months after its inception, with meetings focused

on education and clarication of issues. A number of interest groups, agencies, private organizations, local governments, and individuals made informational presentations on the local resources and land management policies. In a meeting in late 1992, the group identied a number of acquisition alternatives, including landowner education, voluntary landowner conservation, less-than-fee purchase, and full-fee acquisition. The group as a whole identied goals, and by January 1993, ve months after its inception, the group had developed a management plan that outlined its priorities for the watershed. There were some unresolved conicts within the group, however. In late 1992, a committee was formed to design an organizational structure for the group, but it was disbanded after its proposal was vetoed by a few participants opposed to formal structures. Similarly, when the group decided to form a steering committee at the end of 1992, some individuals objected to nominating or electing representatives, arguing that they did not trust anyone to represent them. In the January 1993 meeting, a steering committee was formed by self-selection. Twenty-two people volunteered to be on the steering committee, including representatives from the BLM, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the local Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCDs), Arizona State Lands Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Audubon Society, ranchers, real estate brokers, and other local landowners. The steering committee was directed to address land acquisition, which was the groups rst objective. The steering committee met monthly throughout most of 1993. Much of the meeting time was spent trying to build trust among group members and clarifying issues and concerns. Eventually, the steering committee developed a landowner information form that the BLM has used when contacting landowners regarding acquisition. The information form details landowner options for land conservation, including full-fee acquisition by a conservation organization or agency. Based on discussions at steering committee meetings and the earlier CRM big group meetings, in the spring of 1993 the BLM resource area manager revised the acquisition plan, from attempting full-fee acquisition of riparian areas to favoring development of cooperative management plans with landowners, purchase of conservation easements, and land exchanges. The new BLM policy was to use the information form developed by the CRM group steering committee when contacting landowners about acquisition. Most notably, BLM was now avoiding purchase of any rights on properties not adjacent to other BLM holdings, even

882

M. A. Moote and others

where the landowners were interested in selling to them, and the agency was even considering selling some isolated properties acquired before the CRM process began. The steering committee had never reached unanimous agreement as to whether or not this information form should be adopted, however, and toward the end of 1993 steering committee discussions generally deteriorated into arguments over the BLMs use of the form. In December 1993, the steering committee called a meeting of the entire original CRM group. At this meeting, some CRM group members expressed outrage that the landowner information form had been adopted by the BLM without the approval of the entire group. These people claimed that the steering committee did not have decision-making authority for the group. The entire CRM group met again in January and April 1994. At these meetings, participants generally agreed that the group was not progressing in terms of resource management planning and, although several participants felt there was still a need for a community group to address natural resource management in the watershed, those remaining at the April meeting agreed there was no point in continuing to hold CRM meetings. In May 1994, the group issued a press release stating that the San Pedro CRM group had formally disbanded. The current BLM acquisition policy for this resource area is to send its environmental assessment of any proposed acquisition (full fee or less) out for review to a list of concerned citizens and organizationsa list of approximately 20 people culled from the original list of over 400 CRM participants. The revised list includes NRCDs, landowners, state agencies, city councils, and interest groups. In addition, in the summer of 1994, the local BLM resource area staff prepared a land tenure plan amendment to the local resource management plan that addresses issues raised in CRM group meetings and sent it out for review to the same revised list of concerned interests. Local BLM representatives also attend area NRCD meetings to keep abreast of landowner concerns.

people felt that there had been no improvement in BLM policies and maintained we should have had a lawsuit on that one (Interview Responses 1994). Forty percent of the questionnaire respondents reported that the process failed to address their concerns. Furthermore, 86% of the questionnaire respondents agreed that some CRM participants were not committed to conict resolution, and 32% agreed that they personally were not committed to the success of this group. Several participants felt that three or four individuals were actively committed to sabotaging the process by vetoing group decisions. For some participants, primarily members of a local NRCD, the CRM process exacerbated a basic distrust of government and environmental groups. These individuals were convinced that the BLM, and some environmentalists, had an ulterior motive in initiating the CRM process: to distract people from ling a lawsuit and keep them tied up in meetings until they were too exhausted to ght any more, so that the agency could continue to pursue its acquisition agenda unchallenged. In other words, some participants saw the CRM process as the BLMs way of excluding them from participating in planning. Representation and Access Participants unanimously felt that the initial CRM meetings achieved unbelievably broad representation. Over 400 people attended CRM meetings during the rst few months, and participants represented urban residents, landowners, ranchers, farmers, natural resource agencies, private interest groups, town and county governments, a local water company, and all four local NRCDs represented in the San Pedro River basin. In 1994, almost two years after group inception, questionnaires revealed a broad representation among participants: resource management agencies, including NRCDs (49%); local residents (41%); rancher, farmer, or agricultural organization (35%); environmental organizations (32%); other (nonresident landowners, real estate representatives, etc.) (19%). Most respondents reported affiliations with two or more groups. Ninetytwo percent of the questionnaire respondents agreed that this group encouraged broad participation. Participants also felt that agency officials gave them adequate opportunity to speak and listened to their concerns. Although the group achieved broad representation of natural resource management agencies, environmental organizations, and rural landowners, participants were not satised that it adequately represented the community. For one thing, membership was skewed toward the BLM, the State Lands Department, and TNC, with other agencies and interest groups, such as

Results
Efficacy The San Pedro CRM group as a whole never reached consensus on a land acquisition plan. Nevertheless, several participants thought the BLM had changed its stance on acquisition as a result of this process. Some people were satised with this and saw it as an improvement, but some were notto the extreme case where

Theory in Practice

883

the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Sierra Club, noticeably absent. Some participants felt the group was not representative of much of the land area and most of the population of the watershed, because urban and military base interests were not involved. In meetings, participants also expressed regret that the local governments were not represented and that the group therefore had little input to local planning decisions that signicantly affect the watershed. The time and expense of participation was seen as a barrier to participation by some participants: 70% of questionnaire respondents and most interview respondents agreed that some interests were excluded by lack of access. Because of the size of the watershed and the rural nature of the region, several participants had long commutes to CRM meetings. When participants began dropping out, the greatest attrition was among selfemployed people, including farmers and ranchers, who suffered nancial losses each time they took time off from their jobs. One participant wrote that she was no longer coming because my time is too valuable. [I am] not on salary like government and environmental participants (Questionnaire Responses 1994). Attrition was greatest among private landowners, leaving the group heavily weighted with agency representatives. On the other hand, interview respondents did not feel that these logistical constraints by themselves limited participation. While acknowledging that agricultural people lose money every time they take a day off, agency representatives, interest group representatives, and landowners agreed that people will take time if its productive, but if they feel its not productive they are going to [quit] and if you have a stake and its important to you, youll go, regardless (Interview Responses 1994). It appears that the main reason people stopped attending meetings was frustration with the process. After months of meetings with no tangible accomplishments, several participants concluded that the meetings were a waste of time. A number of people had little patience for bureaucratic delays: even some of the people who were doing a lot of the work became very disenchanted with the process because they are hands-on people who [want to] make a decision and follow through to do that decision right away (Interview Responses 1994). Information Exchange and Learning One area in which participants generally felt that the group had been successful was in achieving information exchange and learning. Over 70% of the questionnaire respondents agreed that the CRM process encouraged everyone to express their needs and provided a mecha-

nism for improved communication. Considerable effort was made at meetings to encourage all participants to voice their concerns. For instance, meetings of the entire CRM group were facilitated and frequently divided into smaller groups to encourage discussion. Most questionnaire respondents (78%) agreed that they had achieved a better understanding of natural resource issues and the administrative decision-making process because of their involvement in this CRM group. Overwhelmingly, participants listed the opportunity to communicate with other interests in the watershed as the most valuable aspect of their involvement in CRM (Questionnaire Responses 1994):
Personal contact with the different ideologies represented [has given] me a broader understanding of the whole.; It has been a forum whereby interested parties can join together in understanding and exchanging ideas and thoughts regarding the protection of the region.; Relationship building and improving my understanding of others that live within the basin [was the most valuable aspect of CRM].

The increased communication and joint learning did not always lead to collaboration and goodwill, however. Some questionnaire respondents listed the primary benet of participation as getting to know the enemy and learning never to trust a bureaucrat (Questionnaire Responses 1994). Learning from one another did not lead to agreement on issues, either. Group meetings frequently dissolved into positioning, circular arguments, and general bickering, and the group was never able to reach consensus upon goals, objectives, or decision-making criteria. Signicantly, the CRM participants were unable to articulate a common purpose after two years of meetings. From the outset there was a split within the group between those who wanted to deal exclusively with land acquisitions, and those who wanted to address watershedwide issues and develop a resource management plan for the basin. Although the group had identied broad goals and objectives in 1992, the 1994 questionnaire responses show that on the whole, participants interpreted these differently from one another. While approximately half of the questionnaire respondents indicated that the goal of this CRM group was to provide representative and coordinated management for the San Pedro watershed, the remainder were divided, identifying either a goal of preserving specic natural resources or a goal of protecting private property from government acquisition, or admitting that they were not sure what the groups goal was. As one questionnaire respondent wrote, Im not sure there is a primary goal as a group. Each person, agency, or group of people seems to have their own ideas and agendas. When

884

M. A. Moote and others

asked what the goal of the CRM group should be, approximately half of the questionnaire respondents identied informed and integrated resource management, one third said it was to provide a forum for information exchange, and a few still advocated either resource protection or private property protection. When asked how information exchange and learning could be improved, several participants said that meetings needed facilitation to encourage dialogue, make sure everyone was heard, and keep things on track. It was considered essential that the facilitator be perceived as impartial, not affiliated with any of the interests involved in the group. Participants also cited a lack of record keeping and a lack of organizational structure as obstacles to effective communication: I dont see how youre going to have anything effective if you have a different group that shows up every time, and no one is bound by, or even remembers, what was said the last time (Interview Responses 1994). Continuity of Participation By all accounts, this CRM group did not achieve continuous participation in planning. There were two major deterrents to achieving continuity. The rst problem was lack of direct and continuous input to BLM decision making. Almost a year passed between CRM group meetings after the steering committee was formed; hence, the group as a whole was not involved in any planning that took place during that time, and group input to BLM decision making was seriously undermined. Participants identied a need for more frequent meetings to keep a thread of continuity so the wheel is not completely reinvented each time (Questionnaire Responses 1994). The other aspect of continuity in participation is group cohesiveness. On this count, too, this CRM group failed. Even when monthly meetings were being held, participants, including some steering committee members, did not feel compelled to attend all of them. Meanwhile, total numbers of participants attending meetings dropped considerably, from over 400 in 1992 to fewer than 40 in 1994. In terms of BLM land acquisition, the group did dene the issues to be addressed and develop alternatives, but it never moved beyond identication of alternatives to selection and implementation of a preferred alternative, largely because it was mired in arguments over the BLMs right to acquire land at all. Decision-Making Authority The San Pedro CRM group did not reach an acquisition decision that all participants felt they had shared in making, and the BLM administrator eventually made a

unilateral decision to move forward with some acquisitions, using the landowner information form developed by the steering committee. There appeared to be two main reasons for the groups inability to collectively reach decisions and implement them. First, the group was operating under a poorly dened rule of decision making by consensus, and second, there was a perception that the group lacked the authority to make decisions that would be implemented by landowners and land management agencies. The San Pedro CRM group chose a consensus decision-making process, but had no way to determine when consensus had been reached. The group might achieve unanimous agreement on an issue at one meeting, but participants who were not present at that particular meeting could later oppose it. Even people present at that meeting could later deny that consensus had been reached, because there was never a process whereby the group articulated and recorded its decisions. Several participants expressed frustration that individuals would retract approval of decisions the group had made at previous meetings, and that the group never signed-off on decisions that could then be implemented. When asked whether the CRM process had been hindered by the consensus requirement, 76% of the questionnaire respondents agreed. Yet 51% also agreed that decision making by consensus is a necessary requirement of CRM. Upon further questioning, it appeared that while the consensus requirement frustrated everyone and many wanted to jettison it, it was also perceived as the best way of ensuring that all participants shared in decision making. The second barrier to group decision making was a perception that the group itself had no authority to make land management decisions that would be respected by landowners and land management agencies. This group never clearly articulated the extent of its decision-making authority, and while some participants expected the BLM to comply with the groups decisions, others considered the groups function to be primarily advisory. Participants expressed frustration that the BLM and other agencies would not either send people with decision-making authority to CRM meetings or delegate that authority to the representatives they did send:
If an agency is involved because they are somehow affected by or created the problem, it seems to me that whoever is going to represent them there must have the ability to speak for the agency. Otherwise, how can you come to a consensus? If they say yes now and no later, youre never going to get anywhere. So up to a point, they must have some delegation of authority to come in and say, All right, if thats what the group agrees to do, we will do this [Interview Responses 1994].

Theory in Practice

885

Participant perceptions that group decisions would not be respected by the agencies involved were compounded by confusion about limitations to the agency representatives authority. One agency representative said, I feel there was a lot of misunderstanding of my role and the other agency representatives roles. I was given the authority to implement the decisions. But I wasnt given the authority to initiate new regulations, to initiate new policy for the agency, to initiate a new directive for the agency (Interview Responses 1994). Some agency representatives did agree that sharing decision-making authority with the public is feasible, as long as the process does not supplant existing law. One, for instance, agreed that the public could be an equal partner in agency decision making, with two caveats: that they have the same amount of understanding of the laws and regulations; and that they have the same understanding of the agencys mission (Interview Responses 1994).

Discussion
This process failed, to some extent, to meet each of the criteria of a participatory democracy approach. The divisiveness and outright hostility that is still felt by some participantsand has even been exacerbated by this processis evidence of its overall failure to reduce conict and thereby facilitate plan implementation. To determine why this CRM process failed to achieve efficacy, it is useful to examine the evaluative criteria for each of the process issues: representation and access, information exchange and learning, continuity of participation, and decision-making authority. This group made a good effort at including all interested individuals and organizations in the decisionmaking process, and the process improved public access to agency representatives and information. The process was also successful in involving nontraditional participants, particularly landowners unaffiliated with any interest group. Thus, the results of this study do not support the argument that the general public is too apathetic to participate in administrative processes. Neither do the results support the claim that more open approaches to public participation fail to remove the barriers that time and nancial commitments present to participation by the general publicthe general public was very involved in this CRM process. However, this process also showed very clearly that those who do not want to be involvedsuch as the local governments in this casewill not be, no matter how many times they are invited and how open the forum. Participants in this CRM process placed considerable emphasis on the need for tangible results in the form of agency feedback

or on-the-ground changes to convince people that participation is worth their while. When the process failed to produce such results, it was perceived as ineffectual, and people made a rational choice not to participate. The informal, multidirectional group discussion format of the CRM meetings denitely encouraged all participants to express their needs and concerns, and this further encouraged collective and individual learning regarding the range of participants interests and concerns. Not all participants felt their concerns were heard and understood, however, and there was confusion over the agencies roles and responsibilities. Notably, while some participants perspectives were changed through collective learning, the CRM process failed to achieve a common group understanding of the major goals for resource management in the watershed, a basic step in any planning process. In part this may have been due to lack of structure for discussions, but as Amy (1990) has pointed out, no amount of communication will bring about agreement when deeply held values are in conict. In this case, perhaps the greatest barrier to collective denition of issues and goals was the fact that several residents of this regionand participants in this groupsimply do not accept that the federal government should own and manage land in this region. In other words, improved communication did not have a moderating effect on polarized positions. Failure to achieve continuity was partly a problem of meeting frequency and lack of communication between meetings, but was also due to inconsistent attendance at meetings. Thus, this study supports the claim (Southern Utah Wilderness Association 1994) that participatory decision-making processes can drag on indenitely without resolution, wearing out participants without resulting in demonstrable input to agency decision making. The San Pedro CRM process clearly failed to achieve shared decision making. When the group was unable to come to consensus on an acquisition decision after a year of meetings, the BLM administrator made a unilateral decision. Although that decision was considerably inuenced by the CRM process, CRM participants did not share ownership in it. The inability of this group to achieve shared decision making illustrates the need to clearly dene a decision-making mechanism and determine the extent of the groups authority at the outset of the process. The problems encountered by this CRM group also underscore the need to clearly dene the limitations placed on the participatory process by law and by the policies of the agencies and organizations involved. Under existing federal planning directives, for instance, agencies must sometimes move forward on

886

M. A. Moote and others

their plans, whether or not the group is ready to provide them with direction. The federal bureaucratic system makes federal agencies solely accountable to Congress, the Courts, and the President through myriad oversight, judicial, and budgetary mechanisms (Bryner 1987). Other legal barriers to shared decision making, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act and antitrust law (Moote and McClaran 1997), were not raised or addressed in this process, but have been encountered in similar efforts at collaborative decision making (Yaffee and others 1996, Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994). Other studies (Landre and Knuth 1993) have similarly found that while consensus-based planning methods gave participants a valuable educational experience, they did not result in greater public inuence to administrative decisions.

Conclusion
Examining the ways in which the San Pedro CRM group failed to achieve the criteria for participatory democracy in public land planning provides lessons for the application of participatory democracy theory to public participation in general. Such lessons are particularly important in this time of federal agency decentralization and growth of community action groups. First, this case study strongly supports the argument that providing forums for social deliberation does not in itself ensure that decisions will be acceptable to all participants. Participants felt very strongly that tangible

outcomes, as well as access, are necessary to achieve public trust and sustain public participation. Furthermore, this case suggests that even extensive public deliberation may fail to resolve deep-seated conicts of interest. Therefore, consensus decision making may not be feasible when deeply held values are at issue. The second major lesson of this case study is the importance of explicitly establishing rules of operation. Lack of meeting structure and decision-making rules led to considerable confusion in this CRM group. Organizational structure can help build trustif everyone knows the rules, then it is easy to see whether or not they have been breached by specic groups or individuals. Similarly, an explicit decision-making mechanism would have allowed the group to move forward and avoid circular arguments. In this case, participants had different perceptions of what constituted acceptable behavior, particularly in terms of when it was appropriate to take action based on group discussions. Third, the participatory democracy tenet of shared decision-making authority must be resolved with resource management agencies and private land owners legal rights and responsibilities. In terms of public land planning, for instance, there are questions as to the extent to which a local partnership group can and should make decisions that represent not only local but national interests. Under the existing governmental system, the agency has sole responsibility for making and implementing these decisions and is solely accountable for them to Congress, the President, and the Courts.

Appendix: Questionnaire Results

Sixty-one questionnaires were distributed in April and May of 1994, and 42 responses were received (Moote 1995). The questions and responses are summarized below. 1. Length of involvement in this CRM group: First became involved: If quit, when: 81% 1992 14% between Dec. 1993 and Feb. 1994 15% 1993 5% 1994 2. Groups represented (some people represent more than one): 49% resource management agencies, including NRCDs 41% local residents 32% environmental organizations 35% rancher, farmer, or agricultural organization 19% other (ex-resident, non resident landowner, self, invited guest, local government) Questions 327 dealt with the San Pedro CRM group process and the role of this group in natural resource planning and decision making. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with statements regarding the CRM group and/or process. This CRM group and/or process: 3. encourages broad participation 92% agree 4. excludes some interests through lack of access 70% agree 5. encourages expression of needs 73% agree 6. generates trust 38% agree 7. some participants are not committed to resolution 86% agree

Theory in Practice

887

Appendix (Continued)
8. is hindered by lack of communication/negotiation skills 81% agree 9. provides a mechanism for problem identication 76% agree 10. structure encourages communication 71% agree 11. plays an important role in problem identication 54% agree 13. has agreed upon a land acquisition position 41% agree 14. lacks adequate information for decision making 46% agree 15. is involved in decision implementation 24% agree 16. has collectively identied goals and objectives 65% agree 17. has been impeded by lack of structure 70% agree 18. goals have changed over time 70% agree 19. has been hindered by consensus requirement 76% agree 20. decision making by consensus is a necessary requirement 51% agree 21. is an improvement over other participatory methods 62% agree 22. improves participant understanding of decision making 78% agree 23. has failed to address my concerns 40% agree 24. has my commitment for success 60% agree 25. has been valuable to me as a participant 84% agree 26. has interested me in participating in other CRM groups 73% agree 27. has been a waste of my time 16% agree Questions 2833 were open-ended questions. The most common responses are summarized here. 28. The primary goal of this CRM group is: to provide for representative and coordinated resource management protection/preservation of the river/other natural resources to protect private property from acquisition too splintered to have oneseveral people/groups have their own agendas 29. The primary goal of this CRM group should be: informed and integrated natural resource management process to provide a forum for information exchange resource protection/preservation/improvement 30. The most valuable aspects of participating in this group are: information exchange meeting people and learning from diverse viewpoints the learning experience (both good and bad) 31. Suggestions for improving the CRM process: more structure, organization reconsider consensus requirement more local/community involvement focus on specic, smaller-scale projects review the CRM processhow it has and has not worked 32. If no longer involved, reasons why: was not a wise use of my timefrustration with process disagreed with agenda(s) of others was not kept informed of meeting times 33. Other comments: this group has great potential but was gutted by certain participants group became subsumed in the process and lost sight of larger goals

Literature Cited
Achterman, G. L., and S. K. Fairfax. 1979. The public participation requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Arizona Law Review 21:501539. ACIR (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations). 1979. Citizen participation in the American federal system. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 357 pp. Amy, D. 1987. The politics of environmental mediation. Columbia University Press, Washington, DC, 255 pp. Amy, D. 1990. Environmental dispute resolution: The promise and the pitfalls. Pages 211234 in N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft

(eds.), Environmental policy in the 1990s: Toward a new agenda. CQ Press, Washington, DC. Anderson, E. W., and R. C. Baum. 1988. How to do coordinated resource management planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43(3):216220. Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35:216224. Atkinson, P., and M. Hammersley. 1994. Ethnography and participant observation. Pages 248261 in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Bachrach, P., and A. Botwinick. 1992. Power and empower-

888

M. A. Moote and others

ment: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 211 pp. Bailey, K. D. 1978. Methods of social research. The Free Press, New York, 478 pp. Behan, R. W. 1988. A plea for constituency-based management. American Forests 97(7&8):4648. Behan, R. W. 1990. The RPA/NFMA: Solution to a nonexistent problem. Journal of Forestry 88(5):2025. Blackburn, J. W. 1988. Environmental mediation as an alternative to litigation. Policy Studies Journal 16(3):562574. Blahna, D. J., and S. Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources 2(3):209227. Brown, C. N. 1993. National Park Service partnerships beyond the national parks. Pages 129145 in E. Endicott (ed.), Land conservation through public/private partnerships. Island Press, Washington, DC. Bryner, G. C. 1987. Bureaucratic discretion: Law and policy in federal regulatory agencies. Pergamon Press, New York, 249 pp. Carpenter, S. L., and W. J. D. Kennedy. 1988. The Denver metropolitan water roundtable: A case study in researching agreements. Natural Resources Journal 28:2135. Cheng, A. S., T. A. White, J. J. Hacker, and P. V. Ellefson. 1993. Managing public forests in a shared-power world: The integration of conict management principles into USDAForest Service planning and management. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Paper No. 20,820. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, 38 pp. Cleary, C. R., and D. Phillippi. 1993. Coordinated resource management guidelines. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. Irregular pagination. Cooper, T. L. 1984. Citizenship and professionalism in public administration. Public Administration Review 44(special issue): 143151. Facaros, N. 1989. Public involvement in national forest planning: What the Council on Environmental Quality requires, the Forest Service neglects. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 4:134. Feller, J. M. 1991. Grazing management on the public lands: Opening the process to public participation. Land & Water Law Review 26:571596. Floyd, D. W. 1988. Reducing multiple-use conicts on public lands through experimental stewardship. Environmental Management 12(4):457462. Fortmann, L., and C. Lewis. 1987. Public involvement in natural resource management. Department of Forestry and Resource Management, University of California, Berkeley, California. 17 pp. Goetz, J. P., and M. D. LeCompte. 1984. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press, San Francisco, 292 pp. Interview Responses. 1994. Transcripts of interviews with key participants in the San Pedro River Watershed Coordinated Resource Management Group. JuneAugust 1994. On le with rst author.

Kathlene, L., and J. A. Martin. 1991. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10(1):4663. Kemmis, D. 1990. Community and the politics of place. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 150 pp. Knopp, T. B., and E. S. Caldbeck. 1990. The role of participatory democracy in forest management. Journal of Forestry 88(5):1318. Kweit, M. G., and R. W. Kweit. 1987. The politics of policy analysis: The role of citizen participation in analytic decisionmaking. Pages 1937 in J. Desario and S. Langton (eds.), Citizen participation in public decision-making. Greenwood Press, New York. Landre, B. K., and B. A. Knuth. 1993. Success of citizen advisory committees in consensus-based water resources planning in the Great Lakes. Society and Natural Resources 6:229257. Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 416 pp. Lyden, F. J., B. W. Twight, and E. T. Tuchmann. 1990. Citizen participation in long-range planning: The RPA experience. Natural Resources Journal 30(1):123138. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 338 pp. Moote, M. A. 1995. Changing models of administrative decisionmaking: Public participation in public land planning. Master of science thesis. University of Arizona, Tucson, 129 pp. Moote, M. A. and M. P. McClaran. 1997. Viewpoint: Implementation of participatory democracy in public land planning. Journal of Range Management (in press). MOU. 1987. Memorandum of understanding between Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior, 2 July. On le with rst author. Paelke, R. 1987. Participation in environmental administration: Closing the open door? Alternatives 14(2):4348. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 122 pp. Questionnaire Responses. 1994. Written comments provided by CRM participants who completed and returned questionnaires, AprilJune 1994. On le with rst author. Reich, R. 1985. Public administration and public deliberation: An interpretive essay. The Yale Law Journal 94:16171641. Reich, R. 1990. Policy making in a democracy. Pages 123156 in R. Reich (ed.), The power of public ideas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Selin, S., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19(2):189195. Shannon, M. A. 1990a. Building trust: the formation of a social contract. Pages 229240 in R. G. Lee, D. R. Field, and W. R. Burch Jr. (eds.), Community and forestry. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Shannon, M. A. 1990b. Public participation in the RPA process. Pages 278357 in Office of Technology Assessment (ed.), Forest Service planning: Setting strategic direction

Theory in Practice

889

under RPA, volume IIcontractor documents. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC. Shannon, M. A. 1992a. Building public decisions: Learning through planning. An evaluation of the NFMA forest planning process. Pages 227338 in Office of Technology Assessment (ed.), Forest Service planning: Accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems, volume II contractor papers. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC. Shannon, M. A. 1992b. Community governance: An enduring institution of democracy. Pages 219246 in Congressional Research Service (ed.), Multiple use and sustained yield: Changing philosophies for federal land management. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Sirmon, J., W. E. Shands, and C. Liggett. 1993. Communities of interest and open decisionmaking. Journal of Forestry 91(7): 1721. Southern Utah Wilderness Association. 1994. Why one advocacy group steers clear of consensus efforts. High Country News 26(10):16. Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New York, 275 pp. Tanz, J. S., and A. F. Howard. 1991. Meaningful public participation in the planning and management of publicly owned forests. The Forestry Chronicle 67(2):125130. Tipple, T. J., and J. D. Wellman. 1989. Life in the shbowl: public participation rewrites public foresters job descriptions. Journal of Forestry 87(3):2430.

USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1985. Experimental stewardship programreview draft. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC, 45 pp. Webb, E. J., D. T. Campbell, R. D. Schwarz, and L. Sechrest. 1966. Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago, 225 pp. Wondolleck, J. M. 1985. The importance of process in resolving environmental disputes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:341356. Wondolleck, J. M. 1988a. Public lands: Conict and resolution. Plenum Press, New York, 263 pp. Wondolleck, J. M. 1988b. Resolving forest management planning disputes. Resolve 20:1, 712. Wondolleck, J. M. and S. L. Yaffee. 1994. Building bridges across agency boundaries: In search of excellence in the United States Forest Service. School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Irregular pagination. Yaffee, S. L., A. F. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W. Hardy, S. M. Maleki, and B. E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem management in the United States: An assessment of current experience. Island Press, Covelo, California, 352 pp.