 

 

THE“

2
:7 '3 0 4.
52;) 5' 9’13“] LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Dialogue with Diversity: Developing a Model for Natural
Resource Professionals and Citizens to Use to Develop Solid
Working Relationships

presented by

Lee S. Nancarrow

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Forestry

 

 

MW?

 

Major Profes or’s Signatu/e

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

—A.—n—u—o-0-.--.-.---.-I-.-.-C—I-o-l-O-O-O-O-ou—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65p.15

Dialogue with Diversity: Developing A Model for Natural Resource Professionals and
Citizens to Use to Develop Solid Working Relationships

By

Lee S. Nancarrow

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Forestry

2003

ABSTRACT

DIALOGUE WITH DIVERSITY: DEVELOPING A MODEL FOR NATURAL RESOURCE
PROFESSIONALS AND CITIZENS TO USE TO DEVELOP SOLID WORKING

RELATIONSHIPS
By

Lee S. Nancarrow

Public participation in natural resources has a long history of being legally
mandated, with legislation in place since at least 1946. This process of participation
however, has been painfully slow and has not been effective.

In response to past participation shortcomings, the Department of Forestry at
Michigan State University, in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and the USDA Forest Service, undertook a project to address these
shortcomings. The project had two components. The ﬁrst was a series of workshops.
The objectives of the workshops were to bring forestry professionals together with people
who would be considered unengaged in natural resource issues, to ﬁnd out what people
want from urban and community forestry, to ﬁnd out why people are not involved and
ﬁnally, to ﬁnd out how these people would like to be involved.

The second component was an evaluation of the workshops. The objectives of the
evaluation were to ﬁnd out if people thought a process using small group discussions was
a good way for citizens and natural resource professionals to work together on decision-
making issues and to determine the participants’ views on the format for the workshops.

The overall goal of the project was to develop a model that forestry and other
natural resource professionals can use to better work with citizens. This thesis describes

the workshops and presents the results of the evaluation.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the entire faculty in the Forestry Department for the
wonderful education I received in my time at Michigan State. Special thanks go to Dr.
Larry Leefers of the Forestry Department and Dr. Dennis Probst of the Parks and
Recreation Department for being on my committee. I learned a lot from both gentlemen
in class as well as in non-structured settings. I am extremely grateful to my major
professor, Dr. Maureen McDonough for having the opportunity to work with her. I am
especially thankful that she accepted a student from a non-forestry background into the

department. I have received an excellent education thanks to everyone in the department.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 5
Background ................................................................................... 5
Participation Methods ....................................................................... 6
Two-Way Communication .................................................................. 8
An Effective Means of Involving Citizens ............................................... 9
Keys to Implementing Two-Way Communication .................................... 10
Requirements of Natural Resource Professionals ...................................... 15
Diversity and Values ....................................................................... 19
Why Embrace Diversity? .................................................................. 20
A Disclaimer ................................................................................ 22
Summary .................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS .......................................................................................... 25
Workshops .................................................................................. 25
Selecting Michigan Communities ........................................................ 25
Selecting Non-Michigan Communities ................................................... 26
Organizing Workshops .................................................................... 27
Obtaining Participation .................................................................... 29
Contacting Potential Attendees ........................................................... 30
Workshop Procedures ...................................................................... 32
Michigan Workshops ...................................................................... 37
Non-Michigan Workshops ................................................................. 40
Evaluation Process ......................................................................... 44

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 48
A. Results From Workshops .............................................................. 48
Small Group Questions .................................................................... 49
Question One: Trees and Communities ................................................. 49
Question Two: Importance of Trees ..................................................... 49
Question Three: Concerns Regarding Trees ............................................ 50
Question Four: Involvement in Urban and Community Forestry .................... 53
Question Five: Organizational Involvement ............................................ 54
Question Six: Easier Ways to Get Involved ............................................ 54
Small Group Discussion Summary ...................................................... 55

iv

What People Learned ...................................................................... 55

B. Results From Evaluation ............................................................... 62
Telephone Interviews ...................................................................... 62
Communication and Perception Questions ............................................. 63
Workshop Format Questions ............................................................. 66
The Future ................................................................................... 69
Interview Summary ........................................................................ 7 0
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 71
Conclusions ................................................................................. 71
Limitations .................................................................................. 76
Recommendations ........................................................................... 78
Final Comments ............................................................................ 8O
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Groups and Organizations Contacted .................................... 82
Appendix 2: Learned Things ............................................................. 84
Appendix 3: Interview Results ........................................................... 94
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 99

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Actual & Projected Minority Population Percentages ............................... 22
Table 2. Small Group Discussion Questions .................................................... 34
Table 3. Michigan Workshop Attendance ....................................................... 38
Table 4. Non-Michigan Workshop Attendance .................................................. 41
Table 5. F ollow-Up Interview Questions ......................................................... 45
Table 6. People Interviewed by Workshop Location .......................................... 47
Table 7. Number of Small Group Discussions by Location .................................. 48

vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

On the surface, the concept of citizen participation would seem to hold almost
universal appeal. In today’s society, who would oppose an idea that empowers people
and gives them the ability to actively participate in making decisions? The problem is
that many participation attempts are simply “on the surface”. That is, although in a
democratic society people may not overtly oppose public participation, the concept is
oﬁen not actively promoted, especially by those in power (Ghai 2001). This results in the
power holders making many decisions, often to the detriment of many segments of
society, including minorities.

But exactly what is citizen participation? Is it simply the opportunity to express
one’s opinion, no matter how insigniﬁcantly one is heard? Is it the right to choose from a
pre-selected list of options, created by those in power? The answer to these questions is
no. These are not examples of acceptable citizen participation. Amstein (1977) states
that citizen participation is “. . .the means by which they (have-not citizens) can induce
signiﬁcant social reform which enables them to share in the beneﬁts of the affluent
society”. For participation opportunities to be effective they must be genuine, they must
allow for the expression of different values and opinions and they must offer the
opportunity to affect change and decision-making.

The problems with past participation attempts and methods exist in many areas of
society, including natural resources and forestry. Although public participation in natural
resource issues has been legally mandated for over 55 years, the process of developing
meaningful public participation opportunities has been painﬁilly slow. As Clark and

Stankey (1976) note, “One of the most signiﬁcant changes in resource management in

North America in the past decade has been the increasing importance of citizen
participation in the decision-making process”. This quote is over 25 years old, and is just
as relevant today is it was when it was published.

Over the past 40 to 50 years, the percentage of the population living in rural areas
has decreased, while the percentage of the population living in urban and (especially)
suburban areas has increased. As people move further away from rural areas, there has
been an increased desire on the part of both citizens and natural resource management
agencies to get more people involved in urban and community forestry decision-making
and other activities (Clark and Stankey 1976; Knopp and Caldback 1990). These efforts
are coming ﬁ'om two directions. The ﬁrst is ﬁ'om a public with an increased desire to be
heard and to have their desires met. Secondly, there is a segment of the natural resource
profession that recognizes the need to involve citizens. Although these efforts have noble
objectives, they tend to fail in two main areas. The ﬁrst failure occurs in attempts to
obtain diverse citizen participation. This lack of diversity may relate to ethnic diversity,
but not exclusively. Oftentimes, the problem is simply that the same people get involved
in a particular natural resource issue, without any new people getting involved. Too
frequently, the participants in forestry issues do not fully represent the population of the
communities in which they live.

The other major problem with past attempts at obtaining citizen participation in
natural resource issues is that in many cases, they simply do not work. Many different
types of participation methods have been attempted over the years, but they have often

failed to meet the desired objectives, for various reasons, which will be explored later.

It has become clear that there is a signiﬁcant need to develop new ways of
successfully and meaningfully involving the public (Sirrnon et a1. 1993). The project
described in this thesis attempted to address the problems with past participation
methods. The Department of Forestry at Michigan State University, in conjunction with
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, held four pilot workshops in Michigan
communities in late 1999 and early 2000. The purpose of these workshops was to bring
forestry professionals together with citizens who would be considered not engaged in, or
not represented in, urban and community forestry issues. With the success of the pilot
workshops, the program was expanded nationally with the assistance of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.

By studying past attempts to involve the public in natural resource issues, this
project attempted to ﬁnd a better way to involve members of the public in a meaningful
dialogue with natural resource professionals, as well as with other citizens who might
hold opposing viewpoints. The approach utilized in this project was to use small group
discussions, led by a trained facilitator, as a more effective way to get citizens and natural
resource professionals to communicate with each other in a non-confrontational setting.

There were two important components of this project, the ﬁrst being the
workshops. Speciﬁc objectives of the workshops were to bring forestry professionals
together with citizens who would be considered unengaged in forestry issues, to ﬁnd out
what people want from urban and community forestry (as well as from the professionals
who work in this ﬁeld), to ﬁnd out why people are not involved and ﬁnally, to ﬁnd out

how these people would like to be involved.

The other main component of this project was to evaluate the workshops. After
the workshops were held, interviews were conducted with the workshop participants to
obtain their feedback. There were two objectives of the evaluation. The ﬁrst was to ﬁnd
out if the participants thought a process utilizing small group discussions was a good way
for citizens and professionals to work together on natural resource issues and decision-
making. The second objective was to determine the participants’ views on the format and
logistics of the workshops.

An overarching goal of the project itself was to develop a model that forestry and
other natural resource professionals can use to reach out to the citizens who live in the
communities that these professionals represent. The purpose of this thesis is to describe

the workshops and to report the results of the evaluation.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
BACKGROUND

Although some people might think that citizen participation in natural resource
issues is a relatively new phenomenon, this could not be further from the truth. The
Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 originally mandated public participation in
governmental decision-making (Gericke and Sullivan, 1994). Tipple and Wellman
(1991) refer to the 19505 as a “relatively closed system”, in that there was not a great deal
of public involvement. Citizens generally did not demand involvement until the 1960s, a
period when people began to question many government decisions, both environmental
and otherwise. The increased demand for more public involvement led to legislation
directly related to environmental issues with the passage of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This piece of legislation, alongwith the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976,
mandated public involvement in the process of government decision-making. Since that
time, there has been an increase in citizen involvement in environmental issues, with
many lawsuits having been ﬁled against government agencies for not adhering to legally
mandated requirements to actively involve citizens.

Unfortunately, the increase in laws directed at increasing public involvement has
not necessarily resulted in the desired outcomes. Too often, the public does not perceive
attempts at participation on the part of government agencies as being genuine. In some
cases, agencies are simply carrying out their legal mandates to involve the public

(Cortner and Shannon 1993; Susskind and Elliott 1981) without putting forth a good faith

effort to actually utilize public input. Reinke and Reinke (l 97 3) make the distinction
between informing the public and involving them. Informing them simply means telling
people what an agency plans to do. This is not genuine participation. Conversely,
involving indicates a sincere attempt to listen to citizens, to obtain feedback and to ﬁnd
out how professionals can better serve citizens. Taking involvement a step further,
Knopp and Caldbeck (1990) note the important distinction between simply listening to
citizens and actually allowing them to inﬂuence decision-making. Bengston et al. (1999)
refer to this as “shared leadership”. Amstein (1977) warns of the danger of “participation
without redistribution of power”. Genuine participation not only means hearing from
citizens, but also means incorporating their ideas and desires into the decision-making
process. It is crucial that citizens ﬁnd their participation opportunities to be fair (Smith
and McDonough 2001). When citizens perceive participation opportunities as simply an
effort on the part of an agency to fulﬁll its legal requirements, conﬂict and antagonism

result (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Marshall 1977).

PARTICIPATION METHODS
There have been a myriad number of different methods of public participation,
including citizen panels, surveys, committees, forums, workshops, meetings and public
notices, among others. Perhaps the most common is the public hearing, which has been
soundly criticized by authors for years. In a public hearing, an agency ofﬁcial speaks
ﬁom a podium at citizens in response to a particular issue. Often, the issue is
controversial, so there is already some mistrust and bad feelings on the part of the

citizens. The main problem with public hearings is that there is very little opportunity for

any kind of two-way dialogue (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Smith et a1. 1999). Citizens get
very little opportunity to speak and if so, are often in a defensive position when they do
so. The agency holds all the power (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Wagar and Folkman
1974). Berry (1981) compares public hearings to congressional hearings, and refers to
them as “window dressing”, simply an attempt to maintain that the agency has offered an
opportunity for participation. But this form of participation is not genuine. King et a1.
(1998) take the criticism of public hearings a step further, calling them the least effective
form of participation. Based on their research, they conclude that “Public hearings do not
work”.

Another common form of participation is the survey. Unfortunately, surveys also
have drawbacks, including time and expense (Bengston et a1. 1999). When used as a
participation method, surveys also suffer from the problem of limited information. That
is, the information that is requested of the survey recipient is limited to what is asked on
the survey. The creator of the survey knows what questions he or she wants to ask, so
there is usually no opportunity for the respondent to offer additional information. A clear
danger exists in any form of communication that restricts, manages or controls the ﬂow
of information between professionals and citizens (Clark and Stankey 1976; King et a1.
1998). Surveys generally do this. A possible solution to this is to ask open-ended
questions, but most surveys do not extensively do this as it makes data compilation
cumbersome, time consuming and not cost effective. When used as a research tool
however, surveys can be effective as a means of obtaining information. This is in

contrast to utilizing them as a participation method, which can actually stiﬂe input.

If these and other methods do not work, then how is it that the public is to be
involved? There have been very little data to indicate which participation methods are
most effective (Force and Williams 1989; Gericke and Sullivan 1994). In addition, there
is likely no “best” way to carry out participation (Hendee 1974; Sample 1993). Different
situations may call for different forms of participation methods. This is especially true
when dealing with diverse citizens (Ghai 2001). However, there is deﬁnitely a need for
new ways for citizens to participate (Cupps 1977; Daniels and Walker 1996; Knopp and

Caldback 1990) since so many past methods have been ineffective.

TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION

Many authors argue that the most effective form of participation is one that allows
for a fruitful exchange of information between all participants and a two-way dialogue
rather than the one-way ﬂow of information that has traditionally been more prevalent
(Cortner and Shannon 1993; Force and Williams 1989; Gericke and Sullivan 1994;
Godschalk and Stiﬁel 1981; Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; King et a1. 1998; Smith et a1.
1999; Susskind and Elliott 1981; Tipple and Wellman 1991; Wellrnan and Tipple 1990).
One—way communication lacks the opportunity for response and feedback, leading the
recipient to feel as if he or she is being talked “at” rather than “with” (Amstein 1977;
Tipple and Wellrnan 1991). Two-way communication leads to collaboration, as the
parties begin to work together to develop mutually agreed upon solutions. Further, this
leads to the parties perceiving everyone involved as equals and implies a sharing of
power, rather than all power residing with the “experts” (Force and Williams 1989; Furze

et a1. 1996; Selin and Chavez 1995). Many traditional forms of participation have led to

a high degree of mistrust of agency personnel on the part of citizens. Two-way
communication can alleviate a great deal of that mistrust and get people to work together
(Daniels and Walker 1996; Gericke and Sullivan 1994; Smith et a1. 1999). The
alternative is confrontation, which unfortunately, has often been the typical way of

dealing with many environmental issues (F rear 1973).

AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INVOLVING CITIZENS

Perhaps the most effective manner to reach the goals of a successful participation
program that provides the opportunity for two-way communication is to involve
participants in small group discussions. As Bengston et al. (1999) assert, “It is through
discourse and deliberation that people discover and express social values, which can then
be incorporated into management”. Small group discussions afford people the
opportunity to express these values and opinions. If properly facilitated, they allow the
participants to share opinions in a non-threatening manner, avoiding the conﬁ'ontations
that often accompany some other forms of participation, particularly public hearings. In
a study carried out by Gericke and Sullivan (1994), USDA Forest Service personnel
found small group activities to be more effective than large meetings. Other authors have
made similar assertions. Based on the research these authors conducted, they conclude
that small group discussions are an effective means of achieving effective public

participation (Saunier and Meganck 1995; Smith et a1. 1999; Wagar and Folkman 1974).

KEYS TO IMPLEMENTING TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION

Unfortunately, natural resource agency interaction with citizens is often the result
of listening to a complaint or handling a problem (Johnston 1986). A way to resolve this
is for natural resource professionals and the agencies for which they work to be proactive
and to regularly communicate with the publics they represent, instead of being reactive
and having to listen to a critical and angry public. There are several steps professionals
can take to make themselves more accessible to the public. The ﬁrst is simply to make
themselves more available (Crafts 1973). It is important for professionals to make
themselves known in the community and to not hide behind a desk or out in the ﬁeld.

Another way professionals can be proactive is to solicit public comment rather
than respond to it (Hendee et a1. 1974). This demonstrates a professional’s willingness to
reach out, instead of waiting to be approached. This also helps to alleviate the possibility
of an issue degrading into a problem. It is much easier to deal with an issue before it
becomes a problem rather than having to resolve something after it has become a point of
contention. Welhnan and Tipple (1990) assert that the responsibility for communicating
with citizens lies with agency professionals.

Additionally, professionals may need to be willing to make personal sacriﬁces in
order to serve citizens’ interests. This entails actually going to the citizens. For instance,
not all citizens are available during business hours. Professionals may need to meet with
people on weekends or during the evening (Fischer et a1. 1993; King et a1. 1998).

A key to successfully involving the public is to involve citizens early in the
participation process (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Reinke and Reinke 1973; Smith et a1.

1999). Early participation means allowing citizens to help develop alternatives and

10

possible solutions to an issue (Redelshernier 1996; Sample 1993; Sampson 1998). It is
not acceptable (or effective) for professionals to develop alternatives and then present
them to citizens. Citizens need to be present in the development of alternative solutions
and they need to be involved from the early stages. Too often, public involvement has
occurred late in the decision-making process (Godschalk and Stifel 1981; Randolph
1987). This will simply anger citizens, rather than making them feel as though they are
integral components of a team. Amstein (1977) notes that this can make people feel as
though they have “participated in participation”. In short, people want to know that their
participation matters (King et a1. 1998; Knopp and Caldbeck 1990).

Citizens also want to see a tangible outcome from their participation (Frear 1973).
They need to get some feedback from their participation, which again reinforces the
perception that their participation matters (Fischer et a1. 1993; Henning 1987).

Another integral component of the participation process is the sharing of
information (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983). Information sharing must take multiple forms.
Not only should professionals share information with citizens, but citizens can also have
valuable information to share with the professionals (Sample 1993). Professionals must
be willing to listen. Further, the information ﬂow from the professionals to the citizens
cannot be censored. That is, citizens deserve to have access to the same information that
is available to the professionals (Frear 1973). It is not acceptable for professionals to
only share the information they feel is necessary. This is not a meaningful information
exchange. And as citizens and citizen groups become more involved, they will demand
to have access to the same data that is available to agencies (Cupps 1977 ; Knopp and

Caldbeck 1990). Too often in the past, agencies have purposely decided what

11

inforrrration they were willing to share (King et a1. 1998). Working together with the
public will force agencies to develop means to share relevant information in an
appropriate manner (Henning 1987; Wellrnan and Tipple 1990). This is not something
agencies have been very successful at in the past (Daniels and Walker 1996).

The sharing of information will lead to one of the objectives of effective two-way
communication, that of mutual learning. To effectively develop two-way
communication, there must be a system in place where citizens and professionals learn
from each other. Often, people think that professionals have all of the information
(Daniels and Walker 1996; Parker 1992). As was just discussed however, professionals
can also learn a great deal from citizens. Another beneﬁt accruing from mutual learning
is that people tend to learn and retain more when they actively participate (Daniels and
Walker 1996; Godschalk and Stittel 1981; Wellrnan and Tipple 1990). Attending a
public forum, listening to a speaker or watching a presentation do not offer the learning
experience that an exercise in effective two-way communication can provide. Natural
resource management agencies have always been good at designing activities that
provide a one-way ﬂow of information from the professional to the citizen through
activities such as public hearings. However, they have not been successful at designing
mechanisms that allow for the ﬂow of information to, or the education of, professionals
by citizens (Daniels and Walker 1996).

One of the key aspects of mutual learning is the ability of people to effectively
work together. There are obviously many cases involving natural resource issues where
the participants have held different views and objectives. For the world’s natural

resources to be managed, all interested people must have the opportunity to be involved,

12

and must be willing to collaborate with people holding opposing views (Kessler 1991;
Loorrris 1993). Natural resource management agencies need to make themselves open to
hearing new ideas and viewpoints (Wellrnan and Tipple 1990). This helps the agency
work more effectively with the public. There have been cases where natural resource
professionals have thought the public was against the professionals, but in workshops led
by Daniels and Walker (1996), they found that citizens wanted to work with, not against,
agency personnel. Behan (1988) describes this process of citizens working together with
professionals as “participative public involvement”. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of
getting people with differing views to work together is for agencies to not only embrace
working with others, but to actually promote it (Landre and Knuth 1993). A perception
exists that only professionals hold the power in making natural resource decisions
(Nelson and Weschler 1996). This is often true, but citizens would be more likely to
listen with an open mind to professionals if the discussion actually involved the citizens
(F reemuth 1996). As Tipple and Wellrnan (1989) state, “. . .every public forest resource
manager should learn how to work with the public to accomplish mutual objectives”.
Involvement cannot simply be a one-time event (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; King
et al. 1998). Frequent opportunities to participate are necessary (Wagar and Folkman
1974). This leads to a continual process whereby professionals are interacting with
community members (Behan 1988; Bengston et al. 1999; Landre and Knuth 1993; Maser
1994; Selin and Chavez 1995; Smith et a1. 1999; Wagar and Folkman 1974; Wellrnan and
Tipple 1990). Working relationships begin to develop. This continual interaction allows
both parties an opportunity to express their viewpoints and offers the opportunity for the

stakeholders to develop a shared vision of what they are attempting to accomplish.

l3

People will not always agree, but by working together, they can resolve differences of
opinion without an issue becoming contentious.

Of course, collaboration is not some magic formula that will instantaneously
resolve all natural resource issues and conﬂicts. Certain individuals and groups will
always ﬁnd themselves disagreeing with a particular decision. This is inevitable in a
democratic process (Cortner and Shannon 1993). Further, there will always be conﬂict
regarding certain issues (Gerlach and Bengston 1994). This is not necessarily bad,
however. The presentation of differing viewpoints creates a more dynamic process,
whereby more equitable outcomes can be reached and more ideas for solving problems
are brought forward.

Developing working relationships between individual citizens, organized groups
and agency personnel takes time. It is highly unlikely to quickly change years of
confrontation and dissention (Nelson and Weschler 1996). Nor is it easy (Knight and
Landres 1998). It is important for participants to realize that it will take time, but the
effort is worthwhile (Parker 1992). It is also important to realize that developing
solutions to natural resource issues does not always require consensus (Daniels and
Walker 1996; Wagar and Folkman 1974). Tipple and Welhnan (1989) found that citizens
have appreciated being involved in a decision-making process, even when the outcome
was not to their liking. The point is that the citizens were provided genuine participation
opportunities and they appreciated it, even if they did not agree with the eventual
outcome.

Another important consideration to implementing effective two-way

communication is that the participation process must make people feel good about being

14

involved, or they will not want to be involved in the future (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983). If
pe0ple have been sincerely listened to, they will be more likely to want to be involved in
future participation opportunities. Smith and McDonough (2001) refer to this simply as
“fairness”. They posit the notion that it is important for participants to perceive their
participation as being fair. Even if all procedures have been followed correctly by
administrators, participation efforts can still be considered unsuccessful if the participants

do not feel they have been treated fairly.

REQUIREMENTS OF NATURAL RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS

Since natural resource agencies and managers are often perceived to be the ones
possessing the most power in natural resource decision-making, it is imperative for
managers to have the social skills necessary to work with a diverse citizenship. Perhaps
the biggest impediment to successﬁrl working relationships between citizens and
professionals is the lack of social skills on the part of the professionals. As far back as
1975, Stankey et a1. stated that the greatest constraint on how professionals work with
citizens was the skill with which the methods were applied. Several writers have
professed that the most important of these social skills is the ability to communicate
(Cortner and Shannon 1993; Johnston 1986; Saunier and Meganck 1995). An important
aspect of communication is the ability to listen to others, particularly to those holding
opposing viewpoints. This is something natural resource professionals have had
difﬁculty with. The traditional approach was for professionals to explain to citizens what

professionals thought citizens needed. Today, the manager must be adept at listening to

15

what citizens want. Obviously, there is a signiﬁcant difference between the two
approaches.

Managers also need to be creative in developing methods to involve the public
(Cortner and Shannon 1993). As was mentioned, traditional public participation methods
have not been very successful. As such, it becomes necessary for managers and agencies
to become collaborators instead of simply being the “expert opinion” (Selin and Chavez
1995). There are many ways to involve the public. It is up to the professionals to
develop and nurture alternative participation methods.

An important thing for managers to consider is that most citizens do not
understand much of the jargon that is sometimes used by natural resource professionals.
Therefore, it is crucial for professionals to speak in terms that citizens understand. This
does not mean patronizing people (Wellrnan and Tipple 1993). It simply means being
able to interpret scientiﬁc terms, ideas and theories so citizens can understand and
respond to them (Sample 1993). If jargon must be used, it is important that it be
explained (Fischer et al. 1993). By purposely using professional jargon and terminology
not understandable to the layperson, professionals are discouraging the meaningful
participation of the citizenry (Stankey et a1. 1975). Some authors have witnessed this act
in situations that were supposed to be promoting participation and the results were
negative (Amstein 1977; Cortner and Shannon 1993).

To achieve the goal of sincere and effective public participation in forestry issues,
it is absolutely crucial for professionals to change traditional ways of thinking and
attitudes toward working with the public. Knopp and Caldbeck (1990) refer to many

foresters’ actions as paternalistic, suggesting that foresters think they know the right

16

answers and can make the correct decisions. Too many foresters think they “know
what’s best for the forests” (Behan 1966). Writing almost a quarter of a century later, the
sarrre author stated that “professional forestry has not changed its fundamental
perceptions in more than 200 years” (Behan 1990). This is a sad quotation, and one that
must change since citizens are demanding more of a voice in matters concerning their
natural resources.

A problem with many professionals’ mindsets is that they often rely almost
exclusively on natural science and ecological concerns, paying no heed to what the public
wants. These professionals are relying too heavily on their natural science training, while
neglecting the important aspects of social science. Even forest management plans that
are biologically and perhaps ﬁnancially feasible may not be implemented if the citizens
that are affected by the plans do not approve of them (Bliss 2000; Clawson 1975; Loomis
1993). Crafts (1973) takes this point a step further. He writes, “Simply stated, foresters
have trouble seeing the forest for the timber”. This is certainly a severe statement, but it
appears as though not much has changed in the past 25 plus years.

While attempting to get their points across to the public, foresters often attempt to
“educate” the public, believing that if the public only understood what the foresters were
saying, then they would most certainly agree with the views of the professionals (Bliss
2000). Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), this is not the case. Many foresters still
feel as though only those with professional forestry training are qualiﬁed to offer input to
natural resource decision-making (Clawson 1975). But perhaps the next examples offer

some hope that this trend is changing.

17

In one occurrence, a professional forester speaking to a class of college freshman
forestry students said: “We must have the guts to stand up and tell the public how their
land should be managed. As professional foresters, we know what’s best for the land”
(Behan 1966). In another case, the assistant deputy minister of the Canadian Forest
Service was speaking to foresters at a forestry convention when he told them to forget
about educating the public and instead focus on listening to what it is the public wants
(Jones et a1. 1995). There is quite a difference between the two cases. Perhaps the most
striking aspect of these two examples is the time difference. The ﬁrst occurred in 1966
while the second occurred almost 30 years later.

The second example helps to illustrate that one important reason to listen to
citizens is because citizens can also be qualiﬁed to help make decisions. Doble and
Richardson (1992) conducted a study on solid waste disposal and the greenhouse effect
and found that ordinary citizens could help make reasonable decisions even if they did
not have professional training and even if they did not ordinarily keep abreast these
issues. The authors compare citizens making natural resource decisions to jurors in a
court case. In both examples, the citizens are not experts in the subject matter, yet in both
instances, reasonable people can be entrusted to reach acceptable conclusions.

Other authors have also determined that citizens can reach reasonable decisions,
but they may need the proper amount of information in order to do so. These authors
stress the importance of having a shared base of language and knowledge from which to
work (Hadden 1981; King et a1. 1998). While some authors hold slightly different
opinions on how much knowledge citizens need, all seem to agree that citizens are

capable of, and must be able to, assist in decision-making.

l8

At one time, citizens and interested groups probably were more accepting of
leaving the management of natural resources to the professional (Bengston 1994). But
beginning in the 1960s, people began to question blindly following those entrusted with
power. Of course, this shift occurred in many areas of society, not solely in natural
resource issues. But as the environmental movement began to grow, people wanted a
voice in how their forests were managed. Unfortunately, the forestry profession has
tended to resist change on many levels. In studying the history of the USDA Forest
Service and the forestry profession itself, Twight and Lyden (1988) have found “that both
involve commitment to a social establishment intended to do permanent things and thus
be relatively permanent themselves”. Obviously, this does not lend itself to acceptance
of social change. Bengston (1994) asserts that the main reason for the challenge to

traditional forestry today is its failure to embrace societal changes.

DIVERSITY AND VALUES

One of the important drivers behind the change toward more citizen involvement
is the diversity of values held by many members of society. Foresters have long been
criticized for attempting to resolve issues based exclusively on scientiﬁc evidence
(Bultena and Hendee 1972). This trend is still present today. There are some values held
by citizens that foresters might ﬁnd unimportant, or irrational. There are people who may
never actually see an old growth forest, who may never visit a national park, and who
have no commercial interests in trees, yet they value forests simply because they know
that forests exist (Wellrnan and Tipple 1990). A professional might consider this form of

valuation impractical or irrational, but it cannot be ignored simply because the

19

professional wants to apply his or her own belief systems (Parker 1992). Professionals
and the agencies for which they work must realize that preferences do matter and they
cannot be ignored (Bliss 2000; Loomis 1993).

One of the reasons for the emphasis on values as they relate to forests is due
partially to the increased diversity of the people interested in forestry. Traditionally,
Caucasian males have dominated the profession of forestry. This is changing. More
women and ethnic rrrinorities are becoming increasingly interested in natural resources
for several reasons, including careers, recreational opportunities and quality of life
concerns. With this increase in diversity of participants comes an increase in ideas about
how forests and other natural resources should be managed. Some may consider it
burdensome to attempt to reach out to different members of society, but a wide range of
ideas and input from a diverse cross section of society will more accurately represent the
interests of society as a whole. Landry (2000) succinctly points out that homogenous
populations ﬁnd it difﬁcult to be creative. They have problems ﬁnding different
solutions to problems, especially in the face of a rapidly changing society. It is crucial
for societies to embrace the creative differences of outsiders (Landry 2000). Further, it is
better to be proactive and embrace diversity than it is to be reactive and face the problems

of missed opportunity, conﬂict and higher economic costs (Ghai 2001).

WHY EMBRACE DIVERSITY?
Thus far, the argument has been presented that diversity in and of itself is
positive. But why? The ﬁrst possibility is that promoting diversity helps alleviate

discrimination. This is certainly true. In the United States and in many other societies,

20

laws are passed that are supposed to protect citizens from discrimination. Many would
argue that this is a good ﬁrst step, but it is not enough. Ghai (2001) points out that as a
minority, a group’s interests and desires may be markedly different than those in the
majority. Minority rights may need special attention beyond those of the majority if for
no other reason than to offer a measure of fairness. Even when a minority group’s
concerns are addressed, there may not be enough individuals in the minority group to
inﬂuence decision-makers. In such cases, people may need to have special measures
taken to address their needs. The rationale behind offering special measures is not to give
any particular group of people a bargaining advantage. Nor is it to correct for past
mistakes or injustices. By offering minority groups special measures, the possibility
exists that more minorities will participate. If an individual is the only person
representing a particular group, he or she may become discouraged with how a process is
progressing (Ghai 2001) and may drop out of the discussion. By increasing the
opportunities for minority participation, increases can occur in new ideas and fruitful
exchange, stimulating discussions and creating new opportunities that a single group may
not have reached on its own. As noted author T.D. J akes points out (1999), “The real
opportunity to be enhanced comes when we are exposed to diversity. That diversity
challenges narrow-mindedness and stimulates growth”.

The second argument for embracing diversity is a practical one. United States
Census Bureau statistics show that the demographics of the US. population are changing
and are expected to continue to change. Table 1 illustrates population growth in the
United States’ four largest ethnic minorities from year 2000 actual census percentages to

projections for 2010 and 2020. The data predict growth to occur in ethnic minority

21

populations in the US. in the near future. The Asian and Hispanic populations are
expected to grow substantially, while the Black population is expected to grow
marginally and the American Indian population slightly. These ﬁgures suggest that a
greater proportion of the US. population will be an ethnic minority, and there will be a

greater need to hear from these groups.

Table 1: Actual & Projected Minority Population Percentages

 

 

 

 

 

PERCENT OF TOTAL U.S. POPULATION
Year Black Am. Asian Hispanic
Indian
2000 12.3% 0.9% 3.6% 12.5%
2010 13.3% 0.9% 5.1% 14.6%
2020 13.8% 1.0% 6.0% 17.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: 2000 United States Census

It should be noted again that diversity is not limited to ethnic diversity. Social
and income diversity are also important. While it is important to actively involve
members of different ethnicities, it is also important to obtain input from members of

different social and economic classes.

A DISCLAMER
Thus far, much of the information presented may seem critical of the natural
resource profession in general, and of professional foresters in particular. This is
certainly not the intent of this paper. It should be noted that effective public participation
is not solely the responsibility of natural resource management agencies. Citizens also
need to become active in issues in which they are concerned. Unfortunately, the role of

the public has often been one of ambivalence (King et a1. 1998). Not all people that are

22

contacted or that are aware of a participation opportunity will choose to get involved.
This is to be expected. But if a participation program is able to generate interest among
the public, then the program will have been a success. The objective should not be to get
the opinion of everyone. This is impossible. Rather, the objective should be that
everyone who wants to participate and express an opinion is given the opportunity to do
so (Hendee et a1. 1974). Since natural resource management agencies and the
professionals that work for them are more active in these issues and have more authority,
there is a greater responsibility for professionals to actively seek out and encourage

citizen involvement.

SUMMARY

Over 30 years of literature has shown that public participation in natural resources
is an extremely important issue. However, this issue has not been sufﬁciently or
successfully addressed. Many past attempts to involve the public have not been
successful. In some cases, participation efforts have been made simply to fulﬁll legal
requirements. In other cases, the participation method was improper for the desired
objective(s). At times, participation has been a one-time event rather than a relationship
building exercise.

There are several possible causes of the problems with past participation efforts.
Many professionals do not have the necessary skills to work with citizens on a daily
basis. With the population changes that have already occurred in the US. and that are
expected to continue, this is an important issue to deal with. Agencies often do not have

the resources to devote to the issue of public participation. And oftentimes citizens do

23

not get involved in issues unless they are directly affected by them. Outreach is a
possible solution to this, but nobody can force a citizen to participate.

The situation is not hopeless, however. The literature has shown that it is possible
to successfully involve the public in natural resource issues and decision-making. The
primary goal of this project was to develop a model that forestry and natural resource
professionals could use to work with citizens. The approach undertaken in the project
was to hold a series of workshops, using small group discussions led by a trained
facilitator, as a more effective way to get citizens and natural resource professionals to
communicate with each other in a non-confrontational setting. The objectives of these
workshops were:

1. To bring forestry professionals together with citizens who would be considered not
engaged or represented in forestry or other natural resource issues;

2. To ﬁnd out what people want from urban and community forestry (as well as from
the professionals who work in this ﬁeld);

3. To ﬁnd out why people are not involved and;

4. To ﬁnd out how these people want to be involved.

Following the workshops an evaluation of the workshops was conducted.
Interviews were held with the participants to obtain their feedback on the workshops.
The objectives of the evaluation were:

1. To determine if the participants thought a process utilizing small group discussions
was a good way for citizens and natural resource professionals to work together on
issues and decision-making and;

2. To determine the participants’ views on the format and logistics of the workshops.

24

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

WORKSHOPS
A major consideration in conducting the workshop series was the desire to
achieve uniformity in how the workshops were conducted. As will be discussed, this was

not always possible, but it was certainly attempted.

SELECTING MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES

The communities in Michigan where workshops were held were carefully chosen.
The locations were not chosen as individual sites, but were considered components of one
program. A major objective was to get people from different socioeconomic
backgrounds and to obtain ethnic diversity where possible. The ﬁrst workshop was held
in Marquette, which is one of the larger cities in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. This
particular community was chosen for a few reasons. Because the community is heavily
dependent on the natural resource industry, it was thought that there would be interest
within the community in holding a workshop. Secondly, there are many forestry
professionals who live and work in the area, so getting their participation would not be a
problem. Finally, there is a small Native American population and it was thought that
getting ethnic diversity might be possible.

The second workshop was held in Alpena, a small town located in the northeast
section of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Alpena was chosen for reasons similar to those
in Marquette. Due to its dependence on the tourism and natural resource industries, it

was thought that there would be interest in the community. There are also many natural

25

resource professionals in the area. And due to Alpena’s location as a retirement area, it
was hoped that age diversity would be achieved by getting retirees to attend.

The third workshop was held in Muskegon, a mid-sized town located on Lake
Michigan in the Lower Peninsula. Unlike the ﬁrst two workshops, there were some
different reasons for choosing Muskegon. The ﬁrst reason Muskegon was picked was
because it was not a small rural community. Alpena is small and although Marquette is
one of the larger Upper Peninsula cities, it still has a population of almost a third of
Muskegon’s. Here, it was hoped to get different viewpoints from those garnered in rural
communities. Muskegon has small pockets of populations of different ethnic populations
and it was hoped to obtain their participation.

The last Michigan workshop was held in downtown Detroit. Obviously a highly
urbanized setting, Detroit was the last extreme on a rural-to-urban scale. Since residents
of a large city have many different concerns than people living in a rural or mid-sized
city, the views of Detroit’s residents were highly valued. And as with the prior

workshops, participant diversity was also sought.

SELECTING NON-MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES
As with the Michigan workshops, the non-Michigan workshops were also
carefully chosen. It was again desired to get participation from people from different
socioeconomic backgrounds, races and geographic areas. As such, attempts were made
to hold workshops throughout the country. And as with Michigan, different sized cities
were also chosen. Community sizes ranged from very small (Goodwater, AL) to mid-

sized (Charleston, SC) to metropolitan (Bronx, NY). And also similar to Michigan, the

26

national communities were selected as components of one large program. They were not
considered independently. Seven national workshops were held: Denver, CO, Newark,
NJ, Charleston, SC, Atlanta, GA, Lincoln, NE, The Bronx, NY and Goodwater, AL.
Perhaps the most important consideration in planning the non-Michigan
workshops was ﬁnding a local partner to help coordinate the event. It is extremely
difﬁcult to plan a workshop when the planner is located in a different state. One of the
reasons for the success in the Michigan pilot workshops was due to the fact that the
planners were reasonably familiar with the communities that were chosen. For some of
the national workshops, the local partner was a community member active in local
affairs, while in other instances it was a forestry professional who was knowledgeable
about the community. The only requirement for this partner was that the person needed
to be excited about the workshop and that the person had to be interested in taking an
active (and sometimes even a leadership) role. In all of the workshops held nationally, an
active partner helped to coordinate the event. Potential workshops in the following
communities were not held due to the lack of a local partner: Flagstaff, AZ., Los Angeles,

CA., Boise, ID, and Boston, MA.

ORGANIZING WORKSHOPS
Once a community was chosen in which to hold a workshop, a fairly standard
process was followed in organizing it. The ﬁrst step was often to contact the local
chamber of commerce and speak with the director. After explaining the objectives of the
program, the director was often able to make suggestions regarding where to hold the

workshop. It was important to ﬁnd a suitable location that was easy for people to ﬁnd. It

27

was also important to ﬁnd a location that was not threatening to the participants. The
chosen location was usually either a community college (if available) or a community
center, although in some cases, a hotel had to be utilized. Community colleges and
community centers had a less formal environment, and seemed to make people feel more
comfortable. Also, attempts were made to try to reserve rooms that were larger than
might normally be needed for a meeting with the number of people who attended. With
three or four small group discussions occurring simultaneously, the rooms tended to get
noisy. Finally, it was important to schedule the meeting at a time that was convenient for
people to attend (Fischer et a1. 1993; King et a1. 1998; Smith and McDonough 2001).
With one exception (Goodwater, AL was held during lunch hour), all of the
workshops were held in the early evening and began with a light meal. The reasons for
doing this were twofold: by offering a free meal, people might be more likely to attend.
Something was desired on the part of the participants (their input), so it made sense to
offer them something for their time. Second, by holding the workshops in the evening,
more people were able to attend. The only people that mentioned evenings as being
inconvenient were some of the forestry professionals, who would have preferred that the
workshops be held during their working hours. Most professionals also acknowledged
however, that it was probably necessary to hold the workshops during the evening so
more citizens could attend. As the project progressed, it was determined that a
manageable number of participants was 25 to 40 people, with a citizen to professional

ratio of about eight or nine to three.

28

OBTAINING PARTICIPATION

Obtaining a diverse mix of citizen participants for a public gathering can be
somewhat challenging (Slover 1996). This was certainly the case with the forestry
workshops. One of the major goals of the workshops was to reach out to people who
have not participated in forestry-related activities. Speciﬁcally, the participation of
people who would be considered not engaged or underrepresented was desired. These
participants could often be ethnic minorities since minority groups have often been left
out of forestry discussions and decision-making. However, the participants did not
necessarily have to be minorities. They could simply be anyone who has not participated
in this type of activity in the past.

A problematic aspect of ﬁnding these people is that often, people who are
interested in forestry (or any other topic, for that matter) are often already involved in the
issue. The challenge was to ﬁnd people who might be interested in becoming involved,
but had not yet been involved. In the Michigan pilot workshops, several people said they
had been concerned about forestry-related issues in the past, but had never gotten
involved because either they had not been asked, or they did not know how to become
involved (Force and Williams 1989). Another reason (although not as common as the
others) for not getting involved was that people did not have the time to get involved due
to other responsibilities in their lives (King et a1. 1998). This was especially true in more
economically disadvantaged communities. As one participant at the Detroit workshop
mentioned, when people are trying to feed their families, they are not that concerned

about the health of the trees in their neighborhoods.

29

The chamber of commerce director was usually helpful in identifying potential
attendees. Most chambers of commerce have a directory of organizations for their
community. These directories were helpﬁrl in ﬁnding contacts from various ethnic,
community, social and civic organizations that might have people interested in attending.
Most of these organizations have leaders who are active in community affairs. These
people usually know whom to contact and were normally very helpful in ﬁnding potential
attendees. Although the situation varied from one community to another, some common
groups that were contacted include: community foundations, The League of Women
Voters, NAACP, senior citizen groups, churches, local colleges, physically challenged
groups, community organizations, block clubs and minority and ethnic groups (Appendix

1).

CONTACTING POTENTIAL ATTENDEES

Once people were identiﬁed, an invitation letter was sent to each person
explaining the program and its objectives. If the letter was sent to the leader of an
organization, the letter also extended an open invitation for other members of the
organization to attend. Also included in the letter were directions and a map to the
workshop location, as well as the project proposal, which further explained the program.
In organizing the ﬁrst workshop, cost to attendees was not mentioned. After receiving
questions about the cost, subsequent letters stressed that the evening was free.

Approximately one week after the letters were sent, a phone call was made to
each person to whom an invitation letter was sent, asking if he or she would be interested

in attending, or if anyone ﬁom their organization might be interested. Sometimes these

30

people provided contact information for others who might want to attend. In this case,
the same process was followed in contacting these individuals. It was very much a
grassroots effort and a time-consuming one as well. Attempts were made to contact as
many community leaders as possible, so that the search for attendees was thorough, but it
is also possible that otherwise interested people may have been missed. No broad-
brushed attempts to reach people, such as advertising, were made. Further, ﬁrm
commitments from people who were interested in attending were desired so the number
of people to expect could be gauged. To that end, all people who committed were
contacted a few days before each workshop, as a reminder. There were still cases where
people did not show up, but this follow-up step did reduce the number of no-shows. A
lead—time of about eight weeks was used from the time that letters were ﬁrst sent to the
date of the workshop.

A suggestion that was made to reach more people was to make a short
presentation in front of different groups at their meetings and explain the program and
answer questions. Some groups might allow a few minutes to do so at one of their
meetings (Smith et a1. 1999). By doing so, a larger audience is reached and the
opportunity exists to make a more personable presentation than a letter allows for. This
tactic was not tried, although it does seem to have merit. It would probably be necessary
to increase the eight-week lead-tirne if this was done.

Several groups offered to put the workshop information in their periodical
newsletters, but this was not tried due to the lengthy lead-tirne that was required. Also,
some organizations do not meet in the summer months, so for workshops that were held

in the fall, it was not possible to meet their publication deadlines. However, if a meeting

31

is planned far enough in advance, this is deﬁnitely a possibility. Again, a greater lead-
time would be necessary.

Since one of the main objectives of this program was to reach out to people who
had not been previously involved, certain organizations were explicitly excluded from the
recruitment process. Attempts were made to avoid environmental groups that were
already involved in forestry-related decision-making processes or were otherwise
politically active. The reason for excluding these particular groups was not due to any
disapproval in their ideology. It was simply because they were already involved. The
viewpoints of large organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club
are already fairly well known (Shindler et a1. 1998). In some instances, people who were
members of politically active environmental groups such as these did attend a workshop.
In is not possible to screen every attendee (nobody who wanted to attend was denied
admittance). This ﬁrrthers the point made earlier about people already being involved in
topics that interest them. It is difﬁcult to get someone to attend a function concerning a
topic for which they are not interested. For these reasons, it is probably not possible to get

the perfect mix of participants.

WORKSHOP PROCEDURES
A similar process was followed in conducting each workshop. A registration
table was placed outside each meeting room so contact information from attendees could
be obtained because one of the important components of the program was to interview
the attendees after the workshop. People were then invited in to sit at any of the tables in

the room. Round tables were purposely used so people would be able to converse more

32

easily with each other than they could with long, rectangular tables. The agenda and
purpose for the evening were then explained and people were invited to help themselves
to the buffet-style dinner that was offered. Serving a meal offered the opportunity for the
participants to socialize a bit and become more comfortable speaking to each other before
the forestry discussions began.

After about 45 minutes, the participants were separated to begin the small group
discussions. These discussions were recorded. Depending on the composition of the
participants, two, three or four small-group discussions were held. Each group had a mix
of forestry professionals and citizens with a desired ratio of three professionals for every
eight or nine citizens. The professional to citizen ratio varied among workshops
depending on the attendee mix. The Bronx had the largest groups since there were more
people in attendance. Each group had a facilitator who asked a series of pre-selected
questions, which are listed in Table 2. At the Michigan workshops, graduate students
from the Department of Forestry at Michigan State University facilitated. For the non-

Michigan workshops, local natural resource professionals were utilized.

33

Table 2: Small Group Discussion Questions

 

 

(These questions are for everyone)

1. What are the most important parts of your community to
you?

Probe: What would you miss if you moved away?

2. We would like to hear about the trees in your community.

Probe: Where are they?
Probe: Importance to you? Why?

3. What concerns do you have about the trees and forests in your community?
Probe: Are there any tree-related issues in your community? What are
they?

(These questions are targeted at the

nonprofessionals)

4. Have you ever interacted with urban and community forestry

professionals

Probe: What do you as a citizen expect ﬁ'om them as they do their jobs?

Probe: Are there ways urban and community forestry professionals could better
meet your expectations?

5. Are you active in community organizations and groups?

Probe: Formal groups? Informal groups? Level of activity?

6. In what ways have you been engaged or participated in forestry-related issues?
Probe: Local? Regional? State?
Probe: Attended public meetings? Written letters?

7. What would make it easier for you to be engaged in forestry-related activities?
8. (If time) Are there others you think should be engaged in urban and community

forestry issues?
Probe: What would make it easier for them to participate?

 

 

The discussions were informal. Introductions were made, so that people knew
who everyone was, and also to identify the forestry and natural resource professionals.
The facilitator would follow the list of questions and simply ask the participants in the
group to comment whenever they wanted to. This allowed for a free exchange of

information and ideas between the citizens and the professionals. Every person was

34

given the opportunity to speak. The facilitators also tried to keep any one individual from
dominating the conversation.

After the facilitators had asked all of the questions, the second portion of
information sharing occurred. In this segment, all of the professionals were brought
together in one group, while all of the citizens were gathered in another large group. One
of the facilitators then asked the professionals to discuss what they learned from the
citizens in their small group discussions. As the professionals discussed what they
leamed in each of their small group discussions, the facilitator wrote down on a large
easel all of the items that were mentioned. This was a good way to summarize
everything the professionals thought they learned in their groups. It also allowed for
participants to hear what was discussed in the other groups. The same process was also
followed for the citizens.

The ﬁnal segment of the workshop brought all of the participants together for a
summary of the evening. A volunteer was recruited ﬁom the citizens to share with the
entire group what the citizens thought they had learned from the professionals. Similarly,
a forestry professional was asked to do the same for the information that was garnered
from the citizens. This step allowed all participants the opportunity to hear each of the
major topics that were discussed. It also stimulated some group discussion of common
topics.

There were three exceptions to the basic workshop. Due to the disproportionate
professional to citizen ratio at the Detroit workshop, a slightly different procedure was
followed. The session after the small groups in which the citizens explain what they

learned ﬁom the foresters, while the foresters do the same of the citizens, was not held.

35

There simply were not enough citizens to warrant doing so. For the same reason, the
ﬁnal summarizing session was not held. Instead, two small group discussions were held
that lasted a bit longer than they normally would have, but were informative, nonetheless.

In Denver, most of the questions that were used were the same questions asked at
the other workshops, although some had to be altered a bit to account for the fact that the
workshop consisted only of professionals (this will be explained). For example, at the
other workshops, the citizens were asked if and how they had ever interacted with natural
resource professionals. At the Denver workshop, the professionals were asked how they
have interacted with citizens.

A slightly different format was also followed at The Bronx workshop. The small
group discussions were still held. Due to the higher turnout at this workshop, there were
four small group discussions, and the groups were still larger than those at most of the
other workshops. However, there were no “citizens only” and “professionals only”
discussions after the small group discussions. Some of the professionals were very
adamant that there was no point to doing this. They thought it would just be a restating
of what was already discussed. In addition, many people attended with the mistaken
notion that the workshop was going to help them obtain funding for community forestry
projects. They wanted to discuss this topic as a group. One large discussion was held
following the small group discussions, in which people discussed issues (mostly ways to
obtain ﬁmding) they thought were important to them. In a sense, it was similar to the
small group discussions, albeit on a larger scale. It was different in that there were no

predetermined questions.

36

Finally, all of the participants were thanked for attending. A ﬁnal reminder about
the sign—in sheet was made so that people would know that a follow up call was
forthcoming to ﬁnd out their thoughts about the evening and also to get mailing

information so that a report could be sent to the participants.

MICHIGAN WORKSHOPS

Marquette is a community of just under 65,000 residents and lies on the south
shore of Lake Superior in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Marquette County’s population
is highly educated, with higher percentages of its adult population possessing high school
and college diplomas than either the state or national averages. The median household
income is $3,000 below that of the state, but the county has lower percentages of both
children and adults living in poverty than are found in the rest of the state since the cost
of living is not as high as most of the rest of Michigan.

The Marquette workshop was held at a local Holiday Inn hotel on September 15,
1999. Since this was the initial workshop, there were no preconceived notions on what to
expect from participants, or on the number of people that would attend. Any concerns
were unfounded, as the turnout was good and the discussions lively. There was a strong
Michigan Department of Natural Resources presence. There were a total of 17 citizens
and 12 natural resource professionals in attendance, which allowed for three small group
discussions. Attempts to obtain diversity were limited to getting a mix of males and
females across a spectrum of different ages. With Marquette County’s population being
95 percent Caucasian, it was not reasonable to expect a great degree of ethnic diversity.

However, since Native Americans do live in the Upper Peninsula, attempts were made to

37

involve these people. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful as no Native

Americans attended.

Table 3: Michigan Workshop Attendance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens Professionals Facilitators
Marquette, MI 9-15-99 17 12 3
Alpena, MI 9-30-99 22 10 3
Muskegon, MI 11-4-99 24 11 3
Detroit, MI 3-29-00 7 13 2
Totals 70 46 1 1

 

The second workshop was held at the Alpena Community College in downtown
Alpena on September 30, 1999. This community is located in the northeast section of
Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. It is a relatively small town, with just over 31,000 year-
round residents and has not experienced much population grth in the last 40 years.
Due to its northern location and the fact that it borders Lake Huron, Alpena is a vacation
destination as well as a retiree community. The percentage of people living in Alpena
County who are over age 65 is almost 50 percent higher than the Michigan and national
averages. Also of note is that over 98 percent of the county’s population is Caucasian.
Only 9.6 percent of the adult population have a college degree, compared with 13.8
percent statewide and 15.5 percent nationally. The median household income is almost
$32,000 compared to alrrrost $39,000 statewide.

Due to the demographics, there was no ethnic diversity at this workshop. There
were however, a signiﬁcant number of retirement-aged citizens in attendance. There
were 22 citizens and 10 natural resource professionals present. This allowed for three

small group discussions.

38

The Muskegon workshop was held at the Holiday Inn Muskegon Harbor on
November 4, 1999. Muskegon is a mid-sized city with just over 170,000 residents
residing within Muskegon County. As with Alpena County, the percentage of residents
possessing a college degree (9.0 percent) was well below the state and national averages,
which could account for the much higher percentages of people living in poverty (14.4
percent) compared to the rest of the state (11.5 percent). The county is also fairly densely
populated. There are four times as many people per square mile than are found
nationally, and almost twice as many as the statewide average.

This workshop had the highest tumout of all the Michigan workshops. There
were 24 citizens and 11 professionals, which made the three small group discussions
somewhat larger than the other workshops, although still manageable. And due to the
ethnic diversity in the area (14.2 percent of the county’s residents are African-American),
some of the ethnic diversity lacking from the prior two workshops was achieved.

The Detroit workshop was held on March 29, 2000 at the McGregor Memorial
Conference Center, which is located on the campus of Wayne State University in
downtown Detroit (Wayne County). There were 37 conﬁrmed participants, with 28 of
them being citizens. It looked like an ideal number of people for three small group
discussions. Unfortunately, most of the citizens who had conﬁrmed did not show up.
There were only seven citizens, while 13 natural resource professionals attended, which
was actually more than had conﬁrmed. While it is not unusual to expect that a small
number of conﬁrmations will be broken, it was very surprising that so many people did
not attend, especially since many of the citizens were active in the community, including

several leaders from community groups. Included in the no-shows were several people

39

from ethnic community groups, so the attempt to obtain racial diversity was not achieved.
With 42 percent of Wayne County’s population being African-American, hopes were
high of obtaining minority participation.

Because so many people did not show up, the people that did not attend were
contacted after the workshop to ﬁnd out why. One thought was that the location might
have been difﬁcult to ﬁnd. None of the people interviewed mentioned that as a reason.
The reasons given were: sick, wife went into premature labor, out of town, couldn’t make
it, scheduling conﬂict, forgot, and perhaps the most honest, “No reason really, I just
didn’t”. Apparently, many of these people did not feel obligated to attend, even though
they made the commitment (this particular workshop was originally scheduled for late

autumn 1999, but was postponed due to lack of commitments).

NON-MICHIGAN WORKSHOPS

The ﬁrst non-Michigan workshop was held on April 30, 2000 as one of the
sessions at the 2000 National Hispanic Sustainable Energy & Environmental Conference
in Denver, CO. This particular workshop consisted entirely of natural resource
professionals or aspiring natural resource professionals (college students). Most of the
attendees at the discussion were employed in the forestry profession, although there were
some who worked in different natural resource ﬁelds. Further, many of the individuals
worked for the USDA Forest Service. There were 27 people in attendance, so two group
discussions were held. After these, a lengthy summarizing session was held so that the
participants in each group could hear what was discussed in the other group. The

participants were very eager to discuss what they had learned, so the summarizing session

40

lasted for about 90 minutes, much longer than at any of the other workshops. Table four

lists the national workshop attendance.

Table 4: Non-Michigan Workshop Attendance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens Professionals Facilitators
Denver, CO 4-30-00 0 27 2
Newark, NJ 6-7-00 23 8 4
Charleston, WV 8-14-00 26 6 3
Atlanta, GA 8-24-00 19 9 2
Lincoln, NE 9-13-00 10 8 2
Bronx, NY 9-25-00 40 18 4
Goodwater, AL 9—27-00 18 8 2
Totals 136 84 19

 

 

 

 

The New Jersey workshop was held in conjunction with The New Jersey Tree
Foundation in Newark, NJ on June 7, 2000. This (Essex County) was one of the most
ethnically diverse areas in which a workshop was held, with 45 percent of the citizens
Caucasian, 41 percent African-American and 15 percent Hispanic. Due to this, ethnic
diversity was achieved among the 23 citizens and eight professionals.

The Charleston workshop was held on August 14, 2000 at the Mariott Hotel in
downtown Charleston, which is located in Kanawha County, a county of just over
200,000 residents. The ethnic diversity in the state of West Virginia is not great, with 95
percent of the population being Caucasian, but almost 10 percent of Kanawha County’s
population is not Caucasian, so there is a bit more diversity within the county itself. The
county also has a better-educated, more highly compensated population than the rest of

the state. It is also more urbanized, having almost three times as many people per square

41

rrrile as the rest of the state. This workshop was well attended, with 26 citizens and six
professionals present.

The Atlanta workshop was held on August 24, 2000 at the Louderrnilk Center in
downtown Atlanta (Fulton County). Fulton County is one of the fastest growing counties
in the nation, having seen its population grow by 25.8 percent since 1990. The county is
fairly evenly divided between Aﬁican-American residents (44.6 percent) and Caucasian
residents (48.1 percent). A higher percentage of the county’s residents is college
educated residents than the rest of the nation, 21.2 percent vs. 15.5 percent, while a lower
percentage of residents have a high school diploma, 52.4 percent vs. 57.2 percent. And
although the median income is higher than the national average, the percentage of people
living in poverty is much higher than the national averages. Due to these statistics, it
appears there is very little middle class in the area. Surprisingly, economics were not
discussed at length in any of the small group discussions. There were 19 citizens and
nine professionals in attendance.

The Lincoln, NE workshop was held on September 13, 2000 at the Belmont
Recreation Center in Lincoln (Lancaster County). This county has also experienced a
signiﬁcant increase in population, with its growth rate from 1990 to 2000 twice that of
the rest of the state. There is not a tremendous amount of ethnic diversity with 90 percent
of the county’s population being Caucasian. The median income level in Lancaster
County is higher than the national average and its poverty rates much lower. This
workshop had a disappointing turnout, with 10 citizens and eight professionals present.

There were several people who committed but did not attend.

42

The Bronx workshop was held on September 25, 2000 at The Point, a community
center in The Bronx (Bronx County), NY. This was by far the most heavily attended of
all the workshops with approximately 40 citizens and 18 professionals. Bronx County is
very ethnically diverse, with 29.9 percent of the population being Caucasian, 35.6 percent
African-American and 24.7 percent of the population who consider themselves “other”.
This community diversity also made this the most ethnically diverse of all the workshops.
The workshop was held in an area with very low levels of educated people in comparison
to the rest of the state and nation. Bronx County has the lowest level of home ownership
and the highest levels of poverty of any of the communities in which workshops were
held. These are issues that came to light in the course of the evening.

The director of The Point (a non-proﬁt community organization), who contacted
citizens and community groups, along with a representative of the USDA Forest Service,
who contacted the professionals, helped organized this workshop. While there were a
desirable number of citizens in attendance, there was also a strong environmental
organization presence with no less than ﬁve local environmental groups represented.
Attempts had been made to speciﬁcally avoid environmental group involvement
(particularly those who are politically active) in the workshops because one of the
objectives was to hear from people that had not previously been involved in community
forestry issues. Many of the professionals and environmental group members were
already well acquainted. This illustrates the difﬁculty in organizing a workshop in which
only noninvolved citizens attend. People who are interested in an issue are the most

likely to be involved in it.

43

The ﬁnal workshop was held in Goodwater, Alabama on September 27, 2000.
Goodwater is a small rural (18.7 people per square mile) community located
approximately 70 miles southeast of Birmingham in Coosa County, Alabama. Coosa
County has a fairly ethnically diverse population, with 63.9 percent of the residents
Caucasian and 34.2 percent Aﬁican-American. The city of Goodwater is predominantly
an African-American community (73.3 percent of the residents) and most of the
participants at this workshop were in fact African-American. The residents of Coosa
County are not highly educated compared to state and national averages. For example,
4.9 percent of the county’s adult residents have a college degree compared to 12.0
percent statewide and 15.5 percent nationally. The percentages of adults with a high
school diploma are 41.6 percent countywide, 51.2 percent statewide and 57 .2 percent
nationally. The home ownership rate in Coosa County was higher than in any of the
other communities in which workshops were held. The Goodwater workshop was held at

the local public library, with 18 citizens and eight professionals.

EVALUATION PROCESS
Following the workshops, interviews were held with attendees who signed the
sign-in sheet. A total of 116 people were interviewed, 72 citizens and 44 natural resource
professionals. The objective was to begin the process of evaluating the workshops from
the perspective of the participants. Seventeen questions were asked of both the
professionals and the citizens, which are listed in Table 5. One series asked the
professionals to comment on the workshop and how they perceived talking with the

citizens. Similarly, the citizens were asked to discuss their thoughts on the workshop and

 

their perceptions of speaking with the forestry professionals. A second series of questions
related to the format for the workshops and was asked of both groups. For these
questions, the goal was to ﬁnd out what people thought about how the meeting was set up
and structured. Participant feedback was important to help develop the workshop model

for professionals to use in the ﬁrture, which relates to the last series of questions.

Table 5: Follow Up Interview Questions

 

1. Were you given enough opportunities to express your thoughts?

2. How comfortable were you in speaking in this type of forum? A. Very comfortable
B. Reasonably comfortable C. Just a little comfortable D. Not comfortable at all

QUESTIONS 3a - 6a WERE ASKED ONLY OF THE PROFESSIONALS

WHILE QUESTIONS 3b - 6b WERE ASKED ONLY OF THE CITIZENS

3a. Do you think the people ﬁom the public really listened to your comments?

4a. Do you think the people from the public understood your views?

5a. Do you think you now have a better understanding of the general public now than

You did before the meeting was held?

6a. Do you believe the people from the public were being honest?

3b. Do you think the professionals really listened to your comments?

4b. Do you think the professionals understood your views?

5b. Do you think you now have a better understanding of natural resource professionals?

6b. Do you believe the professionals were being honest?

7. How do you feel about the format for the evening (small groups, then just the public
and just the foresters, followed by one large group)?

8. The length of the workshop was: A. Too short B. About right C. Too long

9. Were the time and location convenient for you?

10. What do you think was the purpose(s) of the meeting?

11. What aspects of the workshop do you think were good and should deﬁnitely be kept?

12. What aspects of the workshop should be discarded, or reworked?

13. Do you have any other suggestions for making the workshop better?

14. Do you have any suggestions for getting people who have not been involved with

Forestry issues to come to a workshop like this?

15. Was the evening worth your time?

16. Would you attend another similar meeting?

17. Are you interested in receiving the results of the study?

 

 

45

Within one to two weeks following each workshop, any participant who
provided contact information on the sign-in sheet was contacted, via telephone if possible
(All of the participants did not offer contact information, but attempts were made to
contact all people who did). Table 6 lists the number of people interviewed from each
workshop. The purpose was to interview as many participants as possible in order to
obtain feedback to develop the workshop model for the future. Most of the telephone
interviews took about 10 minutes, depending on how lengthy the participant’s answers
were. In some cases, attempts to contact people by telephone were unsuccessful. In
these cases, if the person included an email address on the sign in sheet, a list of
interview questions was sent via email. Other people only gave their postal address, in
which case the survey questions were mailed to them. A few people commented that
they appreciated these last two approaches over a telephone interview for a few reasons.
The ﬁrst is that it is less intrusive and less bothersome. Secondly, the interviewee tends
to be more candid when writing their responses as opposed to speaking to an interviewer,
especially if the interviewee has some criticisms. Finally, the interviewee has more time
to consider his or her comments and think about the answers that he or she wants to give.
Much more thoughtful, lengthy answers were received via email or postal mail than via

telephone.

46

Table 6: People Interviewed By Workshop Location

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizens % Interviewed Professionals % Interviewed
Alpena, MI 9-30-99 10 45 5 50
Atlanta, GA 8-24-00 6 32 6 67
Charleston, WV 8-14-00 14 54 4 75
Goodwater, AL 9-27-00 14 78 7 88
Lincoln, NE 9-13-00 5 50 6 75
Marquette, MI 9-15-99 7 41 7 58
Muskegon, MI 11-4-99 10 42 5 45
Newark, NJ 6-7-00 6 26 4 50
Totals 72 35 44 43

 

 

 

 

 

47

 

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

A. RESULTS FROM WORKSHOPS

The results from the workshops were assembled from two sources of information
sharing. The ﬁrst was the small group discussions that started each workshop. The
second source was the portion of the workshop where professionals were brought
together to discuss what they had learned from the citizens in their respective small group
discussions, while the citizens were brought together to discuss the same. Since the small
group discussions were recorded, the results for this ﬁrst information source were
obtained from transcribing the tapes of the discussions. The number of participants at
each group discussion varied depending on the citizen to professional ratio at each
particular workshop. Table 7 lists the number of small groups that were held at each of
the workshops. The results of the second information source (what people learned) were

obtained ﬁom the notes taken on easels during the workshops.

Table 7: Number Of Small Group Discussions By Location

 

Location, Date Small Groups

 

Alpena, MI 9-30-99

 

Atlanta, GA 8-24-00

 

Bronx, NY 9-25-00

 

Charleston, WV 8-14-00

 

Denver, CO 4-30-00

 

Detroit, MI 3-29-00

 

Goodwater, AL 9-27-00

 

Lincoln, NE 9-13-00

 

Marquette, MI 9-15-99

 

Muskegon, MI 11-4-99

 

AWWNNNNW-bww

Newark, NJ 6-7-00

 

 

 

 

b)
—i

Totals

 

48

SMALL GROUP QUESTIONS

., .. ..1I-‘_>‘

The ﬁrst three questions were directed at both citizens and professionals.
Questions one and two were designed to get people conversing with each other and also

to get people thinking about forestry.

TREES AND COMMUNITIES

The initial question asked people to discuss the most important aspects of their
community, things they might miss if they were to relocate to a different community.
There were several things that were universal including a sense of community, people
(friends, family and neighbors) and amenities such as shopping and schools.

There were also answers to this question unique to the type of community in
which the workshop was held. For instance, people in the smaller communities
commented on the “small-town feel” that existed in their communities. As one citizen in
Muskegon commented, “We don’t want Muskegon to turn into Detroit.” Unique to the
responses from people in the larger cities was that one of the main reasons they liked
living in the city was due to the cosmopolitan feel of city life and also for the diversity of
the citizenship. Since this was a forestry workshop, many people also discussed things

such as natural areas, open spaces and trees.

IMPORTANCE OF TREES
The second question asked people to talk about the trees in their communities and
the importance of the trees. Most people discussed the practical and utilitarian values of

trees such as providing oxygen, creating shade, lowering their utility bills and increasing

49

the values of their homes. As one citizen in Newark commented, “Trees are very
important. We couldn’t live without them”. Another citizen at the same workshop but
participating in a different group stated, “Trees add warmth to a community”. Foresters
of course, discussed their careers. Most of the people in the rural communities mentioned
some sort of recreational pursuit related to trees such as hiking, hunting and bird
watching. Regarding recreation, urban residents mentioned the importance of local

parks. People also mentioned more abstract values of trees such as helping build a sense

of community, beautifying their community and creating a sense of peace and serenity.

CONCERNS REGARDING TREES

The next question asked people to identify the concerns they have regarding trees.
People in smaller communities were concerned about the affects of development and
sprawl. Several people commented on seeing housing developments being built on areas
that were once farmland, open ﬁelds or treed areas. The residents of the cities also had
concerns regarding trees, although they were a bit different than those held by more rural
residents, such as those living in Alpena and Marquette. The urban residents’ concerns
took two forms. The ﬁrst was concern over the lack of trees and greenspaces in
metropolitan areas. Several people (professionals and citizens alike) reminisced about
how there were more trees in their neighborhoods in the past. The lack of trees led to
their second concern, quality of life. People in Atlanta, The Bronx and Newark were
concerned about how the lack of trees is affecting their health. The high incidence of
asthma was frequently mentioned in The Bronx workshop. Another quality of life issue

offered by a city forester was related to crime. As he stated, “Studies have been done that

50

V-.—.n

show that housing projects without trees have a higher crime rate than those with trees”.
There were other concerns regarding trees that were unique to an urban setting. For
example, there was a lengthy discussion in one group in Detroit regarding the lack of
diversity of tree species in the city. Apparently, too many silver maples were planted in
the 1950s and 1960s. Today, many of these trees are dying due to either natural causes or
lack of proper maintenance, which was also mentioned as a concern. The issue to be
addressed now is deciding what species to plant in the city, as well as determining who is
going to care for the trees once they are planted. Several professionals mentioned the
planting of non-native species as a concern. Several participants discussed this same
issue in the all-professional workshop in Denver. Apparently, foresters in many
communities are concerned about inappropriate plantings.

Citizens and professionals alike, in both rural and urban communities, are
concerned about tree maintenance and replanting. Some citizens wondered if trees that
are cut down to make room for new houses, power lines and sidewalks were being
replaced. A resident of Newark wanted to know who was going to be taking care of the
city trees since the city forester position was being eliminated. Professionals took a
slightly different stance on this topic. They seemed to look at a more practical side and
were concerned about people knowing how to care for trees. As a forester from a park
association in New Jersey succinctly stated, “Maintenance of trees is so important”.

Tree maintenance (or lack thereof) led to the next common concern, that of
funding. Several professionals pointed out that with agencies being forced to make
cutbacks, including eliminating positions in some cases, they were very concerned about

how trees would be maintained. From a concerned city forester: “When budgets are

51

tight, it’s the ﬁrst thing to go”. There was a lengthy discussion of this topic in one of the
Newark groups. Although citizens were also concerned about funding for tree
maintenance, they seemed to be more concerned about the lack of money available for
grants, tree planting projects and educational programs.

Obviously, all of these are valid concerns. However, they are not mutually
exclusive. Many of the concerns discussed by both citizens and foresters, by both rural
and urban residents, are interrelated such as development and the loss of trees and
greenspaces.

The ﬁnal concern was exclusive to the citizens. At every workshop held, the
citizens talked about their frustration in lmowing whom to call with their forestry-related
questions and concerns. They are confused by the different agencies that exist and would
like foresters to be more accessible (Crafts 1973). At the Detroit workshop a citizen
made the comment, “Traditional foresters have to step outside the box and go meet
people.” To that, a City of Detroit forester agreed, saying, “A problem is that we are not
that accessible.” The workshop planners, who had a very difﬁcult time contacting the
City of Detroit foresters, experienced this admission on the part of the forester. In
defense of the natural resource professionals, a forester ﬁ'om New Jersey made a
comment that tied the issues of funding and the inaccessibility of professionals together.
He simply said, “You can only do so much”. His point was that with agency cutbacks
and funding shortages, it was not possible for a limited number of professionals to always

be available to service citizens.

52

INVLOVEMENT IN URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY

The next series of questions was addressed more toward the citizens, although
foresters often joined the discussions. The ﬁrst of these questions asked people if they
had ever interacted with any urban and community foresters in the past, and if so, to
describe their expectations of these natural resource professionals. Most of the citizens
had been involved at some point in the past. There were many different ways people
have been involved including: writing grant proposals, Arbor Day programs, garden
clubs, scouting, petitions, letter writing, hunter safety, and Project Learning Tree. At this
point in several workshops, either a citizen or a professional brought up the point of
people not getting involved in an issue unless the issue directly affects them (King et a1.
1998). Based on the active involvement of most of the citizen participants at the
workshops, this is likely a valid point. The citizens who attended the workshops were
interested in the topic of forestry. Conversely, a telephone conversation took place
between one of the workshop planners and a gentleman prior to the Muskegon workshop.
In trying to get the man to attend, the man commented that while forestry sounded like a
worthwhile topic, he simply was not interested enough in the topic to give an evening of
his time to discuss it.

Expectations of foresters on the part on the citizens were fairly basic. Things
such as honesty and integrity were mentioned. After hearing some foresters speak so
highly of their jobs, a few citizens commented that they appreciated the fact that foresters
seem to really care about what they do. This became an expectation for some people.
Another expectation was being available to the public. This was a highly charged topic

as will be discussed later.

53

At the Detroit (mostly professionals) and Denver (all professionals) meetings, the
participants were asked how they had interacted with citizens. Most of the professionals
did experience citizen interaction in their daily jobs. This came in the form of working
with homeowner and community groups and through educational programs involving
children. A forester in the Denver workshop stressed the importance of involving people
early in an issue, before a decision has been made (Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; Reinke and

Reinke 1973; Smith et a1. 1999).

ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT
The next question asked people to discuss the community organizations and
groups that they participate in. Since the workshops were held throughout the country,
there was a wide spectrum of groups identiﬁed, most of them local organizations. There
were a few national organizations mentioned such as the National Arbor Day Foundation
and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. Many of the citizens belonged to some formal
organizations, although some people described their involvement as being at the “grass-

roots” level. This particular question was sometimes addressed by the prior question.

EASIER WAYS TO GET INVOLVED
The last question asked participants for suggestions on what would make it easier
for them to participate in forestry-related activities. There were a myriad number of
answers, but several common responses. Several citizens went back to accessibility of

forestry professionals as being key. Other common responses include outreach (both

54

citizens and professionals mentioned this), educational programs, (including those

involving children), advertising, use of the Internet and once again, funding.

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY

There were certainly differences in what people said at the various workshops.
Obviously, each community is unique and as such, has different concerns compared to
other communities. However, one of the most striking aspects of the workshops was the
similarity of responses and concerns across the various communities. People across the
country are concerned about sprawl and the lack of trees and greenspaces that
development creates. Many people think that educating people (particularly children) is
important in dealing with the challenges facing forestry today. Another common theme
was the accessibility of forestry professionals. Citizens do not know where to go for
information and problem solving, while professionals seem to think citizens simply need

to contact them and the professionals will gladly help.

WHAT PEOPLE LEARNED
The second portion of the information sharing was bringing the professionals
together to discuss what they had learned from the citizens, while separating the citizens
to discuss what they learned from the professionals. Although these workshops took
place in many different communities in different areas of the country, there were many
similarities in what people said. There were also similarities between the citizens and
professionals, indicating that perhaps there is not as much disagreement between the

groups as some people think.

55

One of the ﬁrst similarities that came out of the pilot Michigan workshops was the
discussion of values related to forestry. Several citizens commented that they were happy
to know that foresters and other professionals held many of the same values as the
citizens did. A forester in the Marquette workshop stated that had he not been interested
in forestry for any reason other than as a career choice, he would not have gone into the
career at all. He summed up his feelings when he remarked, “Trees are the essence of
life”. A citizen commented that she was glad foresters appreciated trees for their
“spiritual side”. One professional who attended the Atlanta workshop took a more
practical approach to the issue of values when he said he learned that foresters and
citizens shared some common concerns and frustrations regarding forestry issues. A
forester in Lincoln commented similarly, when he discussed the “We vs. Them”
mentality that sometimes exists and needs to be dissolved so the groups can work
together. Another forester from Atlanta remarked that ﬁnding commonalities would help
people to work with and understand each other better.

Many people commented that what is needed is better communication between
professionals and the publics they serve (Bengston et a1. 1999). This point was echoed
throughout the workshops and was mentioned by both citizens and professionals. Several
people thought the workshops were a good way to, at the very least, begin the
communication process. A forester in Newark said that outreach would be a good way to
start the process of involving more citizens. Two other professionals acknowledged the
need to involve citizens (Gericke and Sullivan 1994). After listening in their small group

discussions, several foresters commented that it appears as though people do not know

56

how to get involved. A forester from Charleston referred to this as a “general lack of
awareness”.

How to involve citizens was discussed at most of the workshops with a wide
range of opinions being given. Several citizens feel it is the responsibility of agencies to
offer participation opportunities (Wellrnan and T ipple 1990). One citizen said she felt
“powerless” to get involved in forestry issues. Another citizen felt that foresters should
possess a willingness to involve citizens instead of feeling obligated to do so (Cortner and
Shannon 1993; Susskind and Elliott 1981). She felt that a professional’s response of,
“Call us, we’re in the (phone) book” was not acceptable. A citizen ﬁ'om Lincoln
mentioned that the foresters in his small group wished more people would call them.
After contentious small group discussions took place in the Atlanta workshop, two
foresters expressed views on this topic. One forester mentioned that he learned citizens
were aware of foresters’ existence, but considered them to be inaccessible. A second
forester acknowledged the need for professionals to be proactive in involving citizens.
Conversely, a citizen from Goodwater said that citizens are just as capable of contacting
the professionals as the professionals are of reaching out to the public. One participant in
the all-professional Denver workshop felt that professionals think too narrowly and do
not have the social skills necessary to work with an increasingly involved and culturally
diverse society.

Several foresters pointed out that people do not get involved in an issue until that
issue directly impacts them in some fashion. Their point was that intensive outreach
efforts would be a waste of resources because if a person were interested in an issue, that

person would ﬁnd a way to get involved. One forester said that the citizens who attended

57

the workshop he was at were those who had either an interest in, or questions about,
forestry. Two citizens agreed with this opinion, with one person calling the public
“apathetic and alienated”. A USDA Forest Service employee from the Denver workshop
took a slightly less aggressive stance. He mentioned that with all of the issues in society,
tree-related concerns just do not get as much attention or interest as some other issues do.
Several other professionals seemed to agree with this person, claiming that other things in
a person’s life often take precedence. A forester from Newark perhaps summed up this
discussion the best: “When push came to shove, when ﬁnances got tight, what was the
priority? Police, ﬁre, ambulances and the schools... Now we’ve reached that point where
everybody’s going hey, wait a minute. What happened?” His point was simply that trees
are not always at the top of the list of important issues to address in today’s society. To
summarize, ﬁnding ways to involve citizens was one topic for which there was no
consensus.

However, what was almost universal was the feeling that the public does not
know who to contact to obtain information. In the Alpena workshop, there were several
agencies and private forestry companies represented. Many of the citizens were totally
unaware that so many agencies existed. A forester from that workshop commented that
citizens didn’t understan “. . .the different forestry agencies and organizations, who the
foresters are, or how to contact them”. Both citizens and professionals alike echoed
similar comments at virtually all of the workshops. So while it is debatable as to who is
responsible for contacting whom with a forestry-related question or issue, it does appear
as though natural resource agencies do need to make themselves more accessible and

they need a greater presence in the communities they serve.

58

Another topic that both professionals as well as citizens mentioned as having
learned was that both groups feel that information sharing is very important (Kaplan and
Kaplan 1983). This point was made especially clear in the Atlanta workshop. The
citizens there were very adamant about having access to information. The major
difference lies in how much information participants think citizens should have access to.
One forester thought that citizens should be able to access general forestry information.
Several citizens want access to speciﬁc information, including one citizen who wants
access to forestry publications and GIS mapping, and another who was curious about how
citizens could actually obtain available resources. A forester from Goodwater
acknowledged learning this from the citizens when he discussed citizens’ desires to
obtain information on their own without having to call someone to ask for it. They want
to be empowered. A forester from Charleston suggested roadway signs and information
kiosks as manners in which to begin disseminating forestry information to the public.

Some participants discussed the importance of sharing information between
different agencies and between forestry agencies and citizen groups. A forester from
Charleston mentioned having learned this in his small group discussion. While he
thought the idea had merit, there is no such network currently in place. A forester in the
Denver workshop mentioned the problem of inefﬁciencies between different agencies
and that information sharing between agencies was deﬁnitely needed.

Another topic mentioned frequently by both groups of participants was the
education of citizens. There was a signiﬁcant amount of disagreement as to how
important it is to educate citizens. Also debated was the issue of how much education

citizens needed. Some citizens commented that what they learned in their small group

59

discussions with the professionals was that it was necessary for the citizens to be
educated by the professionals. One citizen learned that this was “important and
necessary”. In these instances, the professionals were telling the citizens that they needed
to hear what the professionals were telling them. Another citizen did not want to accept
everything that was said by foresters with blind faith, but did think it was necessary for
citizens to listen to professionals with an open mind. Other citizens thought it necessary
that foresters provide speciﬁc instructions on how to care for trees via training sessions
and other means of education. Finally, there were some citizens who did not trust what
they heard from the professionals at all and were leery about believing much that was
said to them.

From the professionals’ viewpoint, several said they learned that citizens wanted
to be educated by the professionals. This was based on the comments made by several
citizens in the small group discussions indicating that they really did want to learn more
about forestry and the care of trees. A forester from the all-professional workshop in
Denver made the comment that people need to become more educated about the
importance of forestry and trees. He thought that if people were better informed about
forestry, they could make better decisions (i.e. they would understand foresters’
viewpoints). As Bliss (2000) writes however, “This notion assumes, incorrectly, that lack
of understanding is the source of public disapproval”. Another forester at the same
discussion countered this view, saying that “Rather than educating people, maybe we as
professionals need to raise awareness”. At the Atlanta workshop, a forester thought that

educating people would help solve misunderstandings and other problems. As in Denver,

60

this person’s view was countered by a colleague who said that professionals need to,

“. . .talk to people, rather than down to them”. This topic was obviously highly contested.
Another issue that many participants mentioned as having learned was the
importance of educating children. This was almost universal throughout the workshops,
and was mentioned by both professionals and citizens alike. Lengthy discussions of this

topic took place at the Denver workshop. There were no disagreements that educating
children was important, although there were different suggestions as to how to go about
doing so. Participants mentioned training community leaders, having parents become
better stewards so they could pass information on to their children, and having
professionals teach children in schools.

This topic segued into the next topic: funding. A few professionals indicated to
the citizens that educational programs cost money. Also, professionals pointed out to
citizens that what one individual professional can do is oftentimes limited by the agency
for which he or she works. A forester from the Muskegon workshop stated that he
thought the money spent locally by his agency on education was not well spent anyway.
While he was not advocating withholding money for educational programs, he was
pointing out that simply throwing money at educational programs was not necessarily
going to be successful. It appears as though many citizens came away from the
workshops with a greater appreciation of the obstacles to ﬁmding forestry and tree
planting programs. In the Bronx workshop in particular, several citizens were
enlightened as to the difﬁculty that the local non-proﬁt groups went through in obtaining
funding for tree planting programs. Citizens were not the only ones who learned about

the difﬁculty in obtaining grant monies. An agency forester at the Goodwater workshop

61

acknowledged learning of the difﬁculty one of the citizens had experienced in obtaining
grant money.

The effects of development and sprawl were discussed at several workshops. A
citizen in Charleston learned of the difﬁculty professionals were having in carrying out
urban forestry activities due to developers. Foresters ﬁom three other workshops
mentioned learning of citizen concerns about the disappearance of open spaces and
greenspaces within their communities. Finally, a discussion in the Denver workshop
centered around this topic, with several professionals mentioning that they believed there
was too much development in their respective communities. What made this particularly
interesting was the fact that the professionals in this workshop were from all over the
country, indicating that concerns about the effects of sprawl and development are
universal.

The ﬁnal commonly mentioned topic in the workshops was the discussion of
networking. Several citizens stated they were glad to have made contacts with both other
citizens and citizen activists, as well as with natural resource professionals at the
workshops. There were comments indicating pleasant surprise at making these contacts
and having a networking opportunity. Interestingly, no professionals mentioned this. A

complete list of learned things can be found in Appendix 2.

B. RESULTS FROM EVALUATION
TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
Because there were multiple objectives for the workshops, there were different

types of questions asked of the participants. Some questions related to the interactions

62

between the professionals and citizens while other questions dealt with the workshop

format and logistics. Appendix 3 contains the results of the interviews.

COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTION QUESTIONS

One of the major objectives of the workshops was to develop a forum where all
participants were given the opportunity to express their views in a relaxed, non-
conﬁ'ontational setting. To that end, the participants were asked if they were given
enough opportunities to speak throughout the evening. Of the citizens, 93 percent
answered in the afﬁrmative, with 91 percent of the professionals doing the same. There
were cases where some participants felt that their small group discussion was dominated
by a particular individual, or that a participant did not have the intention of listening to
other viewpoints, but the 93 and 91 percent afﬁrmative response rates strongly suggest
that this type of communication forum does allow for a free exchange of ideas,
information and ideologies (Cortner and Shannon 1993; Force and Williams 1989;
Gericke and Sullivan 1994; Godschalk and Stiftel 1981; Kaplan and Kaplan 1983; King
et al. 1998; Smith et a1. 1999; Susskind and Elliott 1981; Tipple and Wellrnan 1991;
Welhnan and Tipple 1990). Skilled facilitators can help limit a person ﬁom dominating
the discussions, thereby giving everyone the opportunity to speak.

In addition to allowing everyone the opportunity to participate, it was important
for people to feel comfortable in doing so. The participants were asked just how
comfortable they were speaking in a small group setting. Of the professionals, 73 percent
said they were very comfortable, 25 percent said somewhat comfortable and 2 percent

were just a little comfortable. For the citizens, the percentages were 64, 35 and 1

63

respectively. Again, the higher percentages for the professionals could be due to the fact
that they are more accustomed to participating in various forms of public communication.
Many of the citizens who attended had not participated in a public forum previously.
However, although the professionals professed to be more comfortable in speaking, there
were many that were not willing to talk and in fact, needed to be prodded to speak.

Another objective of the workshop was to try to get members of the public and
natural resource professionals to communicate with each other. To that end, a question
was asked of the participants that addressed this objective, which was if the attendee
thought that the members of the other group (professionals for citizens or citizens for
professionals) listened to their comments. More citizens (83 percent) thought the
professionals listened to them than professionals thought of the citizens (77 percent).
This was somewhat surprising given the fact that many of the citizens speciﬁcally
mentioned that they enjoyed learning from the professionals.

The next in this series of questions asked if the attendee thought the members of
the other group understood their views. It appears there is some mistrust and/or a
perceived lack of understanding between citizens and professionals. There were several
professionals and citizens both who felt the two groups did not understand the views of
the other. Saunier and Meganck (1995) reached a similar conclusion in their research.
Only 69 percent of the citizens thought the professionals understood their views, while
just 52 percent of professionals thought the citizens understood them. As some of the
citizens commented, some professionals seemed to think they had already heard what the
citizens were saying. In fact, some of the professionals admitted as much. This is a

troubling ﬁnding and could probably merit additional research.

Participants were asked if they had a better understanding of the other group after
attending the workshop. For the citizens, 69 percent said they did, 21 percent said they
somewhat did, and 10 percent said no. For the foresters, the percentages were 50, 25, and
25 respectively. These results reﬂect the data found in the prior two questions. As was
mentioned, some of the foresters seem to think they had heard similar comments from
citizens before, so it was natural that they thought they did not learn anything new. And
since so many professionals did not think the citizens understood them, it is possible that
they had a bias against thinking they could have learned anything new ﬁ'om the citizens.

The last in this series of questions asked the participants if they thought members
of the other group were being honest. This question was asked in response to a comment
heard at the ﬁrst workshop in Marquette. A citizen there said that she thought some of
the professionals were “politicking”, or saying only what they thought citizens wanted to
hear. It appears as though not many other people felt the same, as more than 90 percent
of both the citizens and the professionals said the other group was being honest. Some
professionals actually commented that some citizens were being too honest. They did not
want to hear some of what the citizens had to say, especially in Atlanta.

From this series of questions, a deﬁnite trend is apparent. The citizens seemed to
have a more positive impression of the small group discussions than the professionals
did. This is evidenced by the fact that more citizens thought the professionals listened to
them, more citizens thought they were understood and more citizens think they have a
better understanding of the professionals now than they did prior to attending. It is
troubling that as many professionals felt as they did. In order for citizens and

professionals to work together effectively, this must change.

65

WORKSHOP FORMAT QUESTIONS

The ﬁrst in the series of interview questions related to the format of the
workshops. The participants were asked what they thought about the format for the
evening (small groups, then just the public and just the foresters, followed by one large
group). Most participants indicated that the format worked well (88 percent of citizens
and 91 percent of professionals). Of course, since this question asked a preference, there
were a few people who thought that certain segments of the evening could have been
longer or shorter, but they were in the minority.

Another question about format was related to the length of the workshop. More
professionals than citizens (86 percent vs. 77 percent) said the length was about right.
Interestingly, 13 percent of the citizens thought the workshop was too long. It could be
that, unlike professionals, some citizens are not accustomed to attending meetings, so this
could account for their thinking the workshop was too long. Conversely, the remaining
10 percent of citizens thought the workshop was actually too short.

The participants were asked if the time and location were convenient. Almost
everyone indicated that both were ﬁne (92 percent of citizens, 93 percent of
professionals). There were however, a few foresters who would have preferred the
workshop be held during business hours, although most acknowledged the need to hold it
at a time when more citizens could attend (Fischer et a1. 1993; King et a1. 1998). The
only exception to these ﬁndings was in Atlanta. Three people there mentioned that the
location was difﬁcult to get to and that a more easily accessible location should have

been found.

66

The next set of questions was more general in nature, but it still related to the
workshop format. The attendees were asked what they thought the purpose(s) of the
workshop was (were). As this was an open-ended question, there were many responses.
The professionals offered 14 different responses, while the citizens had 19 answers. Both
groups said the main purpose was to develop a forum to communicate between citizens
and professionals. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the responses to this question
was in the second most common response from each group. Many of the professionals
answered that the purpose was for professionals to learn how to communicate with the
public. It is almost as if they thought the workshops were an exercise attempting to
educate professionals on how to communicate. Yet not one citizen gave this answer.

The second most common response of the citizens was that the purpose was to educate or
inform the public. Yet only two professionals gave this answer. From this, it appears
that there are still many citizens who do not consider themselves to be equal to the
professionals in this type of discussion. Some citizens said as much when they indicated
that they enjoyed being educated by the professionals. Several citizens also said the main
purpose was to get citizens involved (three professionals said this) and to ﬁnd out what
citizens know (one professional said this). Some other common responses from both
groups were to obtain citizen input and to involve minorities.

Participants were asked to discuss the aspects of the workshop they found
especially good and that should deﬁnitely be kept for future workshops. Professionals
gave 10 different responses and citizens 11. There was a great deal of similarity between
the two groups. The most common response by far on the part of both groups was the

small group format (Saunier and Meganck 1995; Smith et a1. 1999; Wagar and Folkman

67

1974). Everyone also liked the opportunity to express one’s viewpoints in a relaxed
environment. From a practical standpoint, many people enjoyed the free dinner. People
also liked the interaction between the groups and the positive atmosphere.

Conversely, the participants were asked to discuss the aspects of the workshop
that should be discarded. Foresters had more suggestions (14) than the citizens did (8).
However, only one or two individuals suggested many of the responses. The only answer
given by more than two professionals was to have stronger facilitators (some were critical
of having graduate students facilitate the Michigan workshops). Five of the citizens
wanted the questions redone, stating that they were too broad and/or vague. Of course,
they were created this way by design. The questions were created with the desire to not
be controversial. Some participants thought there should have been a debate about a
particular issue, which was not one of the objectives of the project.

Besides critiquing the aspects of the workshop they felt were bad, participants
were then asked if they had any other suggestions for making the workshop better.
Professionals had 14 suggestions, while citizens surprisingly had more, 17. As with the
previous question, many of the answers were only given by one or two people. Only four
of the 14 professionals’ suggestions (and three of the 18 citizen suggestions) were
mentioned by more than two people. The most common answer was to identify and
explain what the next steps would be. This was a common theme. People wanted
something concrete to come from these workshops (F rear 1973). Attempts were made to
make it very clear that we were trying to design a process for future workshops, but some
of the people (especially the citizens) missed this. They wanted to walk away ﬁ'om the

workshop with something tangible. When interviewed, two citizens from Atlanta were

68

wary of attending any type of forestry function that did not result in some sort of tangible

ﬁnding. They did not want to have “participated in participation” (Amstein 1973).

THE FUTURE

Participants were asked if they had any suggestions for getting more people to
attend similar workshops in the future. There were several different responses here, but
again, most were only mentioned once or twice. There were eight answers given by both
groups, however. The most common response was to contact schools and civic groups.
Next, people suggested having participants bring a friend with them. Third, people
suggested more publicity and advertising. Another response was to have neighborhood
and community leaders contact people. As the project developed, it became apparent that
this is a good idea, especially in certain geographic areas. Three times as many citizens
said this as did professionals.

Three questions were then asked to determine the overall opinion people had of
the evening in order to determine potential future participation. The ﬁrst was to simply
ask participants if the evening was worth their time, which apparently it was, with 93
percent of both groups indicating in the afﬁrmative. This was encouraging because even
though there were some people who did not agree with opposing views or were perhaps a
bit defensive (Atlanta), at least ahnost everyone found the workshop worthwhile. It is
also a surprisingly high percentage on the part of the professionals, since many seemed to
think that they did not learn anything and that they had “heard all this before”.

The next in this line of questioning asked participants if they would attend another

similar meeting if the opportunity arose. Of the professionals, 86 percent said yes, 9

69

percent said no and 5 percent said maybe. Some of the Atlanta foresters were very upset
with the outcome of the meeting, so that explains part of the “no” response. Many of the
Atlanta professionals thought the citizens came with an “agenda” and were not willing to
rationally communicate or listen to opposing viewpoints. For the citizens, 79 percent
said they would attend again, 18 percent said maybe, and 3 percent said no. A possible
reason why people said maybe is because many wanted to see something tangible from
the evening. As was mentioned above, attempts were made to make the purpose of the
meeting very clear. Still, many people were not sure what the purpose was. Whether this
was due to some people not reading the invitation, not listening in the workshop, or
whether it was due to something that was emitted by the workshop planners is unclear.
Finally, the participants were asked if they were interested in receiving the results
from the study. Two citizens were not interested and one said maybe. Everyone else was
interested, even the professionals from the Atlanta workshop who were upset with the

workshop there.

INTERVIEW SUMMARY
Based on the information gathered in the interviews, some trends became
apparent. The workshop process itself seems to work. Both citizens and professionals
gave high marks to the organization and facilitation of the workshops. In addition, most
everyone felt they had an opportunity to speak in a non-threatening forum. Conversely,
there appears to be a communication problem (or at the very least, a perception of one)
between citizens and professionals. Too many attendees felt they were not listened to or

were not understood by members of the other group.

70

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This paper began by looking at the history of public participation, particularly

participation involving natural resource issues. Past participation methods were
examined and evaluated. There have been many problems involving past methods, but
perhaps the greatest of these is that there has not been a meaningful information exchange
between professionals and citizens. For the most part, past participation methods have
been one-way; ﬁ'om the professional to the citizen. Another major problem with past
participation methods is that the people who were involved did not fully represent the
citizenry at large. This project utilized small group discussions, led by a trained
facilitator, as a more effective way to get citizens and natural resource professionals to
communicate with each other. Following the workshops, an evaluation of the workshops
took place via interviews with the participants. The main goal of the project was to
develop a working model that can be used by natural resource professionals to work with
the public. Speciﬁc objectives of the workshops were: (1) To bring forestry professionals
together with citizens who would be considered unengaged or not represented in forestry
or other natural resource issues, (2) To ﬁnd out what people want from urban and
community forestry (as well as from the professionals who work in this ﬁeld), (3) To ﬁnd
out why people are not involved and ﬁnally, (4) To ﬁnd out how these people would like
to be engaged. Speciﬁc objectives of the evaluation were: (1) To determine if the

participants thought this was an effective means of getting citizens and professionals to

71

work together on forestry and other natural resource issues and (2) To get the
participants’ views on the format and logistics of the workshops.

In some cases, it was difﬁcult to make generalizations from the workshops
because each community has unique needs and concerns. For example, the Atlanta and
Bronx workshops were very passionate, but in different ways. The citizens in Atlanta
were very vocal and highly distrustful of the professionals. The Bronx residents were
more concerned with cleaning up their neighborhoods. They want to know how to obtain
funding to beautify their community. Pollution is a major issue in The Bronx and asthma
is a signiﬁcant problem due to polluted air and the lack of greenspaces. A commonality
between Atlanta and the Bronx is that the citizens want to see tangible results.

A commonality between Detroit, The Bronx, Lincoln and Goodwater relates to
funding. The citizens of these communities were very concerned about receiving funding
for tree-related projects, especially in The Bronx and Goodwater. They wanted to know
who to contact and how to go about obtaining grants. This point was made most strongly
by citizens who are active in their respective community, although it was also
acknowledged by some of the professionals as well. There is another interesting point
regarding funding. Of the communities in which funding was mentioned as a concern,
only Lincoln could be considered not economically disadvantaged. Since some urban
areas face a number of social challenges, tree issues may not get the attention or ﬁrnding
that some people think they deserve.

There were several common themes that appeared in most, if not all of the
workshops. Although people realize the importance of trees in their communities, some

citizens acknowledged that people do not get involved in issues unless they are directly

72

affected by them. This could be a reason why more people are not involved in tree-
related issues. This point was made at six of the workshops. It was pointed out that
people have many other issues in their daily lives, and trees may not be one of them. It
was suggested that if people knew how important trees were, they might act differently.
This point often led to a discussion of a need for more outreach, which was also a
common theme. There has been a general consensus that more outreach is needed
(Sampson 1988). Citizens are saying it and the professionals are acknowledging it.

Yet another common theme was the confusion felt by citizens about who to call
with questions and the perception that foresters and other natural resource professionals
are inaccessible. It has been suggested that a directory of agencies and professionals’
names be provided to the citizens at the workshops, which is a great idea for people who
attended the workshops, but it does not address the bigger problem of forester
accessibility to the general citizenry. Confusion on the part of the citizens about who to
call was mentioned at every workshop. Some professionals have acknowledged this as
being a problem. Perhaps one ﬁnal example of this will best describe the situation. At
the Newark workshop, one of the facilitators was pressing a forester about the issue. The
forester had been discussing his agency’s participation programs. The facilitator asked
how the average citizen would know about these opportunities. The forester replied,
“Well, we’re in the (news) paper an awful lot. . .But not everybody knows. We’re a well-
kept secret”. Obviously, this is unacceptable and needs to change. This is by far the
most common theme.

Other common themes:
0 Education is needed, particularly involving children. Outreach to schools would be a

great idea. Project Learning Tree was speciﬁcally mentioned in Detroit and Newark.
0 Parks are important to people.

73

Professionals need to speak in layman’s terms and refrain from using jargon.

Citizens do not know whom to contact with their tree-related concerns and questions.
Two-way communication is key. Without it, it will be difﬁcult for citizens and
professionals to work together. This was mentioned mostly by citizens, but was also
acknowledged by some professionals.

Unfortunately, not all professionals appear open to two-way communication. Quotes
made by foresters at two different meetings were, “Feel free to call us”, and “We are
in the (phone) book”. While these professionals stated their willingness to assist
citizens if the citizens call them, this is not the type of proactive attitude that will help
break down communication barriers and facilitate stronger working relationships.
Citizens want to be educated by the foresters. Although there was some distrust of
foresters in Atlanta, citizens generally do trust the professionals and want to be
educated by them. The foresters are still considered to be the experts (Madden 1990).
Professionals need to be cognizant of this, and also be aware that they need to
communicate with citizens and not simply talk at them. Professionals need to be
careful of hearing this from the citizens and reverting to old tendencies of “educating
the people”. With the exception of Atlanta, the citizens trust the foresters to provide
the technical information that citizens lack. However, citizens still expect to be
included in discussions and decision-making.

There are concerns about the effects of sprawl and the lack of greenspaces that sprawl
creates.

Professionals and citizens do have some common ideas and concerns. Identifying
these commonalties will help both groups to work together.

These types of workshops are good ways to make contacts.

Citizens want follow-up.

Citizens want to see tangible results.

These last two points were difﬁcult to offer people from these workshops. It is

really up to the people (both citizens and professionals) in the respective communities to

perform the follow-up with each other. While the workshops were a good start at getting

professionals and citizens to communicate with each other, it is not realistic to expect a

one—time event to have a lasting impact (Daniels and Walker 1996). Hopefully the

citizens and professionals will develop working relationships going forward. A trend

developed during the project of people making contacts at the workshops, which is a

74

positive sign. Other writers have noticed the same result in other participation attempts
(King et a1. 1998). The citizens mentioned that this was a good way for them to meet the
professionals they need to contact. Several citizens from different workshops discussed
the beneﬁts of establishing new contacts at the workshops. They were glad they were
able to learn who to call and connect with.

The only people who discussed this unintended beneﬁt of making new contacts at
the workshops however, were citizens. Not one professional mentioned a beneﬁt of
meeting new people in the community. This is not meant to be an indictment of the
professionals or the agencies for which they work. It does however, indicate that the
citizens may have attended the workshops looking to get something more out of them.
This seems logical because although the workshops were voluntary for both professionals
and citizens, the professionals may have felt an obligation to attend, while the citizens
most likely were not under any type of pressure to attend.

Hopefully, continual follow-up will lead to tangible results in these communities.
This is a point that was stressed to the participants of the Bronx session because the
people came to the workshop expecting something tangible.

One of the questions that was asked when interviewing participants was: “What
do you think the purpose of the workshop was?” People were confused about this. What
makes this interesting is that every participant (unless they came with someone else) was
sent a letter, which explained the purposes. In addition, the reasons for holding the
workshop were also explained at the beginning of each session. Yet in conducting the
interviews, a wide range of answers was given, mostly by the citizens. The foresters

seem to be more cognizant of the reasons for conducting the workshops.

75

LIMITATIONS

A major challenge of this study was obtaining an adequate representation of each
community’s population. For the citizens, attempts were made to obtain a diverse mix of
participants, including racial diversity. This goal was successful in some communities,
while in others, it could have been better. Some communities did not have a very racially
diverse population, so it was difﬁcult to get minority participation. A possible obstacle to
getting a great deal of racial minorities involved could have been due to the fact that most
of the planners in this project were Caucasian. At the Denver conference, a professional
indicated that he, as a person of color, would have a better chance of getting racial
minorities involved than would the facilitator, who was Caucasian.

However, as was mentioned in the introduction, it is important to remember that
diversity does not relate solely to ethnic diversity. In this project, attempts were made to
involve any people who were not involved in forestry and other natural resource issues.
And since it is difﬁcult if not impossible to deﬁne “the public”, it can be somewhat
problematic to determine if a good representation of each community was achieved.
However, based on the participants who attended each workshop, a desired representation
of each community was achieved where possible. In addition to ethnic diversity,
differences in age, profession and income were also realized.

Another limitation occurred on the part of the facilitators. For the Michigan
workshops, the same people facilitated, so uniformity was achieved in how the small
group discussions were handled. Also, although the Michigan facilitators were graduate

students, they had more experience than the facilitators for the national workshops, since

76

these individuals only facilitated one discussion. By having a standard set of questions,
this problem was alleviated to an extent, but there were two cases during the national
workshops where a facilitator asked questions of a group that were not on the list.

An important component of the jobs of the facilitators is to remain neutral. Their
job is not to offer information. It is to keep the discussion going and to follow the
questions on the list. Inexperienced facilitators can have the tendency to offer their own
opinions (which may be irrelevant to the subject matter) and to ask questions that lead the
participants in a certain direction. This occurred in one of the Goodwater groups.

In the second portion of the results section, in which citizens discuss what they
learned from professionals, while professionals mention the things they learned from
citizens, it became obvious in some cases that the participants were not discussing what
they had recently learned in their small groups. Rather, they were taking another
opportunity to further their beliefs and perceptions of various issues. It is important in
this portion of the workshops that the facilitator makes it clear that the point of this
exercise is to hear what the participants actually learned in their small group discussions.
In deciphering some of the data, it was difﬁcult at times to determine what was learned
during the discussions and what was someone’s previously held opinion.

The most signiﬁcant limitation to this study by far was trying to interview the
participants. Some people did not sign the sign-in sheet or did not provide contact
information. This was not a problem for people who were personally invited (since their
contact information was already known), but if someone attended as a guest of someone
else, it was necessary that they complete the sign-in sheet. Also, certain individuals did

not respond to repeated attempts to contact them. Some people who did not offer their

77

phone number did provide an email address and/or a mailing address. In certain cases,
attempts were made to contact participants through these means. While it is somewhat
understandable that some citizens might not respond to attempts to contact them, it is
disconcerting that many forestry professionals ignored repeated requests to interview
them. The interviews were a very interesting and important component of the entire
process. Although this was a limitation, enough aggregate information was obtained

through the interviews that were conducted to make conclusions from the data.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A suggestion for future workshops is to record the entire evening, not just the
small group discussions. Although the portion of the workshop where the professionals
say what they learned from the citizens, while the citizens do the same of the
professionals was documented, it would have helped to have an oral record of the
discussion to refer to. In some cases, it would have been helpful to be able to listen to the
tapes if they were available.

For future meetings, good facilitators are needed. At some of the discussions, one
or two people would dominate the conversation. There were cases of foresters reverting
back to old ideals of “educating the people”. This led them to dominate the conversation.
Strong facilitators are needed so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Similarly, the
conversations could at times tend to stray from the question that was asked. A good
facilitator needs to be able to steer the discussion back to the desired topic.

The facilitators need to ask only the speciﬁc questions that require answers, using

the prompts that were provided with the questions. At one of the Goodwater discussions,

78

the facilitator would ask the desired question, then follow it with other (often unrelated)
prompts and questions. This tended to divert the discussion away ﬁ'om the original
question. Instead of prompting the participants toward answering the desired question,
she appeared to be leading them in a different direction. For example, when discussing
what would make it easier for people to participate, she asked the citizens if they felt they
were being ignored or speciﬁcally excluded because they were African-American. After
some delay, one man answered in the afﬁrmative. If he had stated this without being led
to this answer, that would have been acceptable. But it appeared that she was asking this
because of something she herself perceived, instead of simply facilitating the discussion
(this was not one of the listed questions). It is important for facilitators to remain neutral.
A few participants thought there should have been a particular issue to discuss.
As was previously mentioned, this was not an objective of this project. However, it
would be interesting to conduct a series of workshops using the same model, but
discussing a particularly controversial topic such as clearcutting to see if participants felt
as good about the process in that instance as they did in the current case. As was
mentioned earlier, this process to obtain citizen involvement may not be best in every
situation (Hendee 1974; Sample 1993). One must be careful about making blanket,

“always-never” statements since many participation situations may be unique.

79

FINAL COMMENTS

This project began with several objectives in mind. There were four objectives

for the workshops, all of which were met:

1.

The process was able to bring forestry and other natural resource professionals
together with citizens who were not engaged in natural resource issues.

It was determined what people want from urban and community forestry, which was
access to the professionals as well as to the information these professionals possess.
Citizens who are not involved are those who would like to be involved but do not
know how to get involved, or conversely, those who are disinterested.

Citizens would like to have readily accessible participation opportunities.

The two objectives of the evaluations were also met:

. Both citizens and professionals agreed that the process of (small group discussions

was an effective means of bringing together people with different viewpoints and
from different backgrounds to rationally discuss forestry and other natural resource
issues.

Participants’ viewpoints on the workshop format were obtained.

A great deal was learned from the entire process. If the model is followed closely,

desired results can be reached. Participant diversity can be achieved. Small group

discussions are a viable option for obtaining citizen involvement and can be a key aspect

of many public participation programs. However, the process is not a panacea. As one

of the workshop organizers stated, “. . .it does take a tremendous amount of time and

energy”. The desire for a diverse audience has to be a top priority. And local

80

participation is crucial. There must be a local partner helping to organize the program
and there must be continual local involvement. Perhaps the most important factor
determining a participation program’s success or failure is the need to continually work at
it. As several citizens stated, single, isolated events will most likely not be successful.
These citizens are correct.

In conducting the post-workshop interviews, it became very clear that citizens and
professionals alike felt that the format for the workshops was a successful means to
effectively involve the public in natural resource issues. Small group discussions work.
By allowing people the opportunity to sit down face to face to rationally discuss issues of
interest, citizens and professionals can work out mutually agreeable solutions. Further,
by embracing diversity and reaching out to many segments of a community,

communication barriers can be broken down and more dynamic solutions reached.

81

APPENDIX 1- GROUPS & ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED

AARP

Agency On Aging

American Association Of University Women
Beautiﬁcation Commission

Big Brothers/Big Sisters

Block Associations

Botanical Clubs

Catholic Social Services

Citizens District Councils

City Environmental Committee
Commission For The Blind & Visually Impaired
Community Centers

Community Colleges

Community Foundations
Concerned Citizens Groups
Cultural Centers

Development Commissions
Disabled American Veterans
Ethnic Organizations & Social Clubs
Family Development

Family Services

Garden Clubs

Habitat For Humanity

Hearing Impaired Organizations
High School Environmental Clubs
Homeless Coalition

Homeowners' Associations
Housing Development Corporation
Improvement Associations

Kennel Club

Labor Organizations

Ladies Home League

Lake Associations

Land Use Task Force

League Of Women Voters
Literacy Council

Media

Men's Fellowship Club

Museums

NAACP

82

Naturalists Clubs

Nature Centers
Neighborhood Associations
Park Associations
Recreation Centers
Recycling Organizations
Religious Groups

Rotary Clubs

Schools

Senior Centers

Veterans Groups

Vietnam Veterans of America
Volunteer Centers

Water Resources Institute
Women's Commission
Youth Organizations

83

APPENDIX 2 - LEARNED THINGS

LEARNED THINGS: MARQUETTE FORESTERS

This form of dialogue is good.

The general public is not informed about public involvement opportunities.

The public feels powerless.

Signs posted at a forested site would be good to explain to people what is happening.
The public is generally not concerned about a forestry issue until it directly impacts
them.

Public expects foresters to exercise great care in what they do.

Public seems to think that timber management is okay as long as it is “not in my
backyard”.

Public’s main concerns for forestry issues revolve around recreation and spiritual
values.

This type of format for a discussion (no “hot topic”) is good. It allows people to
participate and contains a social aspect to it.

There are many little things that we foresters can do to please the public as long as we
know what it is that they want (easily accessible phone numbers, explanatory signs).
The lack of public input may indicate that they approve of what we are doing.

The general public does not realize that forests are dynamic, changing systems.

LEARNED THINGS: MAR UETTE CITIZENS

A tree that falls to the ground and dies is a ﬁnancial loss.

Foresters have a wide range of values relating to forests.

Foresters love trees for their spiritual side.

Foresters look at trees as having a wide diversity of uses.

Landowners may not fully appreciate what foresters do.

50% of the wood we use in the US. is imported.

There are different clearcutting techniques and spraying methods.

Foresters have a healthy philosophy about how to do their job.

This meeting is a positive interaction between the public and the forestry profession.
Foresters are not just tree cutters.

Foresters are individuals; they don’t all share the same opinions and beliefs.

The public is apathetic and alienated.

Public needs to read the newspaper and see what is happening in their community.
There should be a willingness to involve the public.

LEARNED THINGS: ALPENA F ORESTERS

The citizens who came were those who were interested in, or had a question about
forestry.

Different forestry professionals see different publics and perceive them in different
ways.

84

Citizens don’t understand the different forestry agencies and organizations, who the
foresters are, or how to contact them.

We foresters need to share basic forestry knowledge with the public.

The public wants foresters to protect the public from the loggers.

Public expects foresters to be qualiﬁed, honest and willing to educate.

Public wants foresters to make sure they protect the forest so that it “is always there”.
Public doesn’t like jargon or acronyms.

Public thinks a forest plan should be developed.

Government workers should be unbiased, whereas it is okay for a private industry
forester to be biased.

Public wants a source to contact to obtain information.

Foresters should go to the public.

LEARNED THINGS: ALPENA CITIZENS

I now know who to contact.

Better understanding of what foresters actually do.

Foresters have environmental concerns, too.

There is a difference between a forester and a logger. Previously, I thought it was the
same.

A better understanding of the forestry management profession and its considerations
was obtained.

We feel better about our forest plan (from a landowners’ association).

Forest managers can’t just do as they please. They are constrained by their employers
and the publics in the jurisdictions that they represent.

There isn’t one “Big Forest Plan”, because there are different forests with different
situations and needs.

Communication to resolve differences is needed between the foresters and the public.
A lot of discussion came from the foresters about forest management, but not about
forest conservation.

Carr management and conservation be the same?

Preservation / conservation means different things to different people. You can’t
deﬁne it easily.

We lack an understanding of forest terminology.

Many people have different perceptions of the various forestry practices.

Foresters need to communicate more with the public.

Some people seemed a bit suspicious of the foresters tonight and appeared afraid to
speak their minds.

In Michigan, we have few (if any) laws restricting the uses of private lands, so private
landowners can do whatever they want.

Public should listen to foresters with an open mind when foresters make suggestions.
It is difﬁcult to get different people to participate in this type of forum, because if
people have an interest, they are probably already involved in some way. Also, people
are busy. There must be a reason for them to want to attend something like this.

85

LEARNED THINGS: MU SKEGON FORESTERS

Trees are valuable for property values.

Public is concerned about clearcutting.

There is a vagueness about the types of forests that exist and who is in charge and
why.

Public has a lack of knowledge about forest products.

Public has difﬁculty in knowing who to contact about forestry-related matters.
Wildlife is being pushed out.

Confusion about who is in charge. Not everything is the DNR.

Aesthetics are important.

Trees have a spiritual value.

Local money is not well spent on forestry.

People don’t know what to expect from foresters.

Public wants more law enforcement on public lands and more regulations about what
activities are allowed.

Public wants more input without having to go to time of attending a lot of meetings.
Public does not understand how to go get involved.

To developers, only money matters.

There is a concern about why trees are not being replanted in the city.

Public did not realize that foresters can have different opinions about how to manage
the same piece of land. A

There are too many chiefs (i.e. foresters). Public needs input, too.

Public didn’t realize that foresters are managers, not law enforcers.

If people want to change laws, they need to get involved in the political process.
People can get on agency mailing lists to be made aware of issues and to receive
information.

If citizens act together, they can make changes.

LEARNED THINGS: MUSKEGON CITIZENS

How can we get more land into protected status?

Foresters have many responsibilities.

Public needs more education.

Is forestry information found on the Internet reliable?

What does MSU Extension actually do?

Although there are enough federal foresters, there are not enough foresters, overall.
Did not know that Muskegon even had a city forester.

Who is liable for inappropriate behaviors on public land?

People are lazy. They won’t (don’t) get involved unless something directly affects
them.

We need to start educating youth about the environment and about forestry.
Programs such as Arbor Day are a good way to do this.

86

0 Schools should be given tracts of land to manage with the guidance of a professional
forester. This would help educate youth while also stimulating interest.

LEARNED THINGS: GROUP 1 DENVER PROFESSIONALS

0 Important community characteristics include: people, family and character of the
environment.
Trees deﬁne what the natural environment looks like in a community.
Trees need to be maintained.
There is too much development (this is interesting, since these people were from all
over the country as opposed to just one region).

0 People need to either educate themselves or be educated about planting inappropriate
species and the dangers of bringing non-native species to a new area.

0 Partnerships are needed to promote environmental issues and the protection of trees
and forests.

0 To establish partnerships, it is important to develop mutually beneﬁcial working
relationships.

0 Skills needed by managers are different when working in urban settings compared
with rural and large areas.

0 Most public involvement has occurred in adult settings. It would help to involve
youth.
We need to reach out to and work with, senior citizens.
In government agencies (particularly the USPS), there is too much focus on political
activities, rather than on environmental needs.

0 What are the rewards of environmental stewardship to managers, society and the
environment?
Money (or lack thereof) is always an issue.
Professionals think too narrowly and do not have the social skills necessary to work
with an increasingly involved and diverse society.
Minorities have been totally left out of the decision making process.
The various issues affecting forestry are often looked at in isolation. They need to be
connected.

0 Environmental careers are not considered to be as important as other employment
opportunities and perhaps do not attract the top job candidates.

0 It is crucial to utilize the existing local infrastructure to promote a forestry agenda.

LEARNED THINGS: GROUP 2 DENVER PROFESSIONALS

0 Of all the issues in society, forestry and tree-related concerns are not considered as
important as other issues.

0 We need to involve youth at a young age.

0 People need to become educated about the importance of forestry and trees.

0 Rather than educating people, maybe we as professionals need to raise awareness (I
thought this was a great point).

0 Trees invoke a “sense of peace”.

0 More qualiﬁed professionals are needed (similar to comment from previous group).

87

Agencies should share resources, which would reduce duplication of effort and
increase efﬁciencies.

We need to get youth to pursue environmental careers, which means making them
aware of the opportunities at a young age.

0 By involving youth, we may be able to get their parents interested.
o In natural resource issues, we must keep in mind that there are always conﬂicting

interests.

Images that relate people of color to the environment are needed — there seems to be a
lack of advertising that shows these people in natural environments. This could
stimulate interest in the environment on their part.

LEARNED THINGS: NEWARK FORESTERS

There is a historic association to trees.

Species selection is different — people have different opinions on what species they
like in their yards.

Public wants to learn more.

We need to emphasize the education of children.

Outreach is deﬁnitely needed - communication must improve between citizens and
professionals.

Citizens are confused about which agencies are responsible for their trees.

Trees have value beyond simply aesthetics.

LEARNED THINGS: NEWARK CITIZENS

There are many agencies and professionals within these agencies willing to help.
Lack of funding and/or coordination is a problem.

We would like to create a shade tree community.

Community leaders could be trained to teach children about tree awareness.
Property owners have problems with different tree species.

Education regarding trees is especially important for children.

We should involve volunteer groups in urban forestry.

Use inmate labor to both plant trees and also to stimulate interest among the inmates.
Try to obtain tree planting grants from government agencies.

Newark has a 4-H group which can lead to tree stewardship.

There should be free tree saplings given to groups for plantings.

The city of Newark has a city forester position that is not always ﬁlled.

Newark used to get a tree city designation, but without a forester, there is no interest.
People should appreciate the city parks.

Better parks would lead to tourism dollars, thereby helping the community.

Newark was the national leader in tree planting and development.

Newark isn’t the only city that has problems with trees and urban forestry.

LEARNED THINGS: CHARLESTON FORESTERS

Some neighborhoods need urban forestry information and training, but the residents
don’t necessarily have the time to get involved.

People don’t know where to go for help. How can we deﬁne urban forestry for them?

88

There is a general lack of awareness that resources exist to help people with their
tree-related questions and concerns.

People want more information and they need help. Ways to disseminate information
could be information kiosks and roadway signs.

Local groups could identify resources to share regarding information, but no such
network exists.

It would be good to have a forum to share and discuss information and to learn about
local urban forestry and natural resource issues.

There is a lack of open space in Charleston

Local organizations are a good way to disseminate information to the public through
the following mechanisms: public service announcements, mass mailings, TV,
newspapers, etc.

People expect a level of competency on the part of local government foresters
regarding urban forestry.

Utility companies have a responsibility to be proactive in dealing with the public
regarding things such as tree trimming.

There is a 2020 Vision program designed to plan for the future of the county, but a
concern exists that there is a lack of emphasis on urban forestry, tree planting and
green areas.

LEARNED THINGS: CHARLESTON CITIZENS

People have a great appreciation for our natural areas and habitats.

Forests are a resource. *

There needs to be an educational program explaining forests as a resource.
Communities have needs related to forestry.

We learned about the concept of urban forestry and the signiﬁcance of forests in our
community.

The public is totally unaware of forestry agencies. There is no outreach at all!!
There is a conﬂict between using forests as a commodity producer and conversely,
not cutting forests. This is a matter of economics.

The comprehensive 20 year plan for the county has no mention of forestry.
Government agencies do exist, and they can provide information and resources.
However, there needs to be an agency directory so people will know who to contact.
It is reassuring to know that forestry professionals are accessible. We didn’t know
that before tonight.

This meeting has been an excellent networking source.

There is a deﬁnite lack of linkage between community groups and forestry issues.
There is a lack of forestry education in the schools.

The general public does not consider or understand the importance of forestry in their
community.

Misinforrnation / propaganda can be a problem. People need to have all the facts.
There is no licensing or standards for loggers.

Power companies have people certiﬁed to make sure cuttings are correctly performed.
There needs to be better ways to distribute information about forestry.

We need to get schools and children involved at an early age.

89

Conservation groups could work with schools to perform tree plantings.

Some Jewish people plant a tree in memory of deceased loved ones. We could do
something like that here, or just plant a tree to celebrate special events.

People don’t notice trees until they are gone.

Sprawl is a problem affecting urban forestry.

People need to know which agency people to contact.

Local government hasn’t done enough to protect natural areas.

Educating the public is important and necessary.

The federal government should partner with local communities regarding education,
public service announcements, etc.

o How do we distribute the information from this meeting? It should be done!

LEARNED THINGS: ATLANTA FORESTERS

0 We need to get closer to the public. The citizens need our assistance.

0 We need to involve the public, which is a difﬁcult thing to do.

0 The public knows foresters exist, but does not consider them to be accessible.

0 If a white forester tries to help a black community, he/she will face skepticism, but if
the forester is the same race as those in the community in which he is working, there
is more trust. In other words, more minorities are needed to work in this ﬁeld.

- Foresters need to go to the public; i.e. civic groups, churches, neighborhood
associations.

0 Foresters and citizens share some common concerns and ﬁ'ustrations regarding forestry
rssues.

0 Agencies and foresters need to operate more at the grassroots level and form
partnerships.

o Foresters are not seeing everything that is occurring in the community.

0 We need to get more people from different cultures involved in natural resources.

0 Those who work for government agencies are often limited in what they can do by
politicians.

- Professionals need to take risks and make themselves more accessible to the public.

0 Agency personnel should work more closely with cooperative extension, since these
people are usually closer to the public.

0 We need to work with local beautiﬁcation organizations.

0 We did not hear what strategies should be used in communities.

0 Agencies should mail out information to people.

0 Agencies need to target a speciﬁc market/community to assist the community with its
needs. This will help us to really know what it is that people want.

0 In the past, people perceived trees as dangerous.

- Educating people would help solve misunderstandings and other problems.

0 Working with communities must be an inclusive process.

0 Finding commonalties will help foresters and citizens to work together better.

0 We must talk to people, rather than down to them.

90

LEARNED THINGS: ATLANTA CITIZENS

o Pubic does not trust agency personnel.

0 Why do the foresters really want us here? What is the bottom line?

0 What service(s) can the foresters share with the public?

0 What did foresters bring with them? Why are they here?

0 What follow-up will there be to this meeting?

0 How are forestry policies and laws being enforced?

0 Can foresters provide the public with resources such as publications and GIS mapping?

0 Foresters need to reach public via outreach programs.

0 We don’t know exactly what foresters and other agency personnel do. What is their
relevance?

0 Public needs basic forestry information.

o How can public ﬁnd out how much green space is left?

0 What programs are available to meet the needs of the urban community?

0 C00perative extension should have access to more funding.

0 Public needs to know what resources are available and how to access these resources.

0 It is difﬁcult to obtain funding to get grants.

0 With what can foresters help the general public?

0 How much funding is available from the USPS for things such as urban forestry
programs and grants?

0 Does this meeting have anything to do with the African American farmers’ lawsuit?

THINGS LEARNED: LINCOLN F OREST ERS

0 People don’t know where to go for information, so:

0 People get much of their information from garden centers and the newspaper.

0 Government seems to be a barrier to involvement. People have a “we vs. them”
mentality about government, and would rather go elsewhere ﬁrst for information.

0 People think that their issues and concerns are so trivial that they shouldn’t bother the
natural resource professionals.

0 People may not want to appear ignorant, so they don’t go to the professionals for help.

0 There is a lack of interaction between professionals and the public.

0 What is interaction? There is a difference between interaction with the community and
interaction with an individual. We need to foster both types.

0 Public feels there is a lack of “front-porch”, informal types of interactions, which result
in citizens losing a sense of community.

0 People may not get involved simply because there are other time commitments in their
lives. They can’t do it all.

0 To some citizens, forestry seems to be an isolated government issue that people cannot
relate to.

o It was good that citizens noticed the difference between an aesthetically appealing area
opposed to an unappealing area.

0 By getting people to notice things such as the prior point, maybe we as foresters can
help people to become involved.

0 A barrier to urban forestry is a lack of ﬁrnds.

91

0 Another barrier is a lack of access to natural areas.

I A citizen felt a personal loss when a large tree had to be removed. Trees seem sacred. Is
this a Nebraska thing? We often have to take down trees to accommodate
development.

0 Citizens really like trails and natural areas.

0 People want greenspaces and open areas in their yards and neighborhoods.

0 There is a difference between what the public thinks a natural area is and what a
professional thinks a natural area is.

THINGS LEARNED: LINCOLN CITIZENS

0 Professionals are willing to share expertise if citizens simply call them.

0 Professionals are also open to receiving calls to diagnose tree problems.

0 Citizens call nurseries to receive answers to tree questions, rather than seeking the help
of professionals. They assume professionals are not available to the public.

0 Professionals wish more people would call them.

0 Professionals want relationship with the public to be interactive and proactive, rather
than reactive.

o Professionals are not visible to the public.

0 Citizens should use the Parks & Recreation Department newsletter as a resource.

0 The intemet can be utilized as an information source.

0 Citizens should join neighborhood associations to get involved in urban forestry.

0 Citizens have time constraints in their lives.

0 Citizens didn’t know if there were opportunities to get involved in tree issues

0 According to professionals, caring for city trees should be a shared responsibility.

0 Grants are available to groups to address tree issues.

0 Trees improve peoples’ quality of life.

0 People tend to take trees for granted.

0 We learned the importance of planting native trees.

0 We learned the difference between species that are planted in urban settings as opposed
to rural settings.

0 We are concerned about what happens to trees to accommodate development.

0 Professionals explained why certain trees needed to be removed.

0 Professionals explained the importance of having licensed professionals perform tree
work.

0 It appears easier to get people involved in smaller communities as opposed to large
cities.

0 Extension doesn’t appear to be used as much in Lincoln as it is in Omaha.

0 Professionals have a long-term focus on the care of trees.

0 Professionals consider prevention in their decision-making.

0 Citizens are interested in trails and opportunities to be involved in their development

0 Maintaining the health of existing trees is as important as planting new trees.

0 After this meeting, citizens feel better about professionals. They know they exist and
that they can be contacted. Forestry is not some obscure governmental issue. It is real
and is accessible to the community.

92

THINGS LEARNED: GOODWATER FORESTERS

Communities do receive assistance, but it is not coordinated between agencies.
Similarly, there is confusion among citizens about which agencies exist.

Getting grants for trees is difﬁcult and cumbersome.

We need to get more people involved.

Citizens call people they know; we need to get people involved in organizations so
more connections will be made.

People want to get answers to speciﬁc questions without having to call for assistance
all the time.

Citizens would like to know how they can maintain their trees.

Some citizens feel that information is being willfully withheld.

Trees are an important part of the community.

Citizens realize that growing trees and creating greenspaces can improve their quality
of life.

People are concerned that dead and dying trees can hurt their homes causing ﬁnancial
losses.

THINGS LEARNED: GOODWATER CITIZENS

Citizens want to know what information is available.

Paperwork for receiving grants is cumbersome. We want the process to be simpler.
We need to involve youth in tree issues.

We don’t know who to contact.

We want speciﬁc instructions on how to care for trees. Training sessions would be
beneﬁcial.

Creating community awareness of the importance of trees would help. Awareness
would also make it easier to recruit volunteers.

Getting businesses involved could lead to donations for tree projects.

Open lines of communication are needed between professionals and citizens.
Citizens can reach out to professionals, just as professionals can do the same (Good
communication is a two-way street).

This meeting is a good way to make contacts.

93

APPENDIX 3 - INTERVIEW RESULTS

1. Were you given enough opportunities to express your thoughts?
Yes

No

No, Someone Dominated The Conversation

Somewhat

2. How comfortable were you in speaking in this type of forum?
A. Very comfortable B. Reasonably comfortable
C. Just a little comfortable D. Not comfortable at all

A. Very Comfortable

B. Reasonably Comfortable

C. Just A Little Comfortable

3. Do you think the peeple from the other group really listened
to your comments?

Yes

Yes, But Many Citizens Had An Agenda

Yes, But Some Foresters Thought They Had Heard It

All Before

No

No, And Some Foresters Avoided Answering Questions

Somewhat

The Citizens Listened, But They Didn't Hear

Not Sure

4. Do you think the people from the other group understood
your views?

Yes

No

No, The Citizens Were Very Distrusting & Suspicious

Somewhat

They Understood, But They Did Not Agree With

5. Do you think you now have a better understanding of the other
group than you did before the workshop was held?

94

PROF. CITIZEN

40

coal-—

32
11

32

6N

HAN-BC!»

21

15

66

nee-

46
25

58

10

48

20

Yes

Yes, But I Don't Agree With What I Heard
Somewhat

No

N 0, I've Heard These Comments Before, But

My Approach To Dealing With Public Will Change
No, I've Heard This Before

6. Do you believe the people from the other group were
being honest

Yes

Yes, But Many Had An Agenda & Were Rude

And Would Not Listen To Other Viewpoints

Most Did, But Those Who Didn't Speak Much May

Not Have Been Being Totally Honest

Somewhat

No

7. How do you feel about the format for the evening
(small groups, then just the public and the foresters,
followed by one large group)?

Good

Good But Small Group Discussions Could Have Been Longer

Good But The Meeting Lasted Too Long

Okay

Small Groups Were Good, But We Didn't Hear

The Other Groups

Good, But You Need A Larger Room

Small Groups Were Good, But Large Meeting At End

Is A Bad Idea

Not Bad; More Diversity Is Needed

Not Bad; More Time Needed

Bad; There Was A Definite Lack Of Diversity

8. The length of the workshop was: A. Too short
B. About right C. Too Long

A. Too Short

B. About Right

C. Too Long

95

21 50
l 0
11 15

“N
C:

41 65

GO”
HMO

38 55

O G-hl‘
:— I-ICIIQI-I

C

G

9. Were the time and location convenient for you?

Yes

Yes, But Traffic/Location Was Bad

No, But This Was A Necessary Time To Get Public There
No, Business Hours Would Have Been Better

No

Location Was, But Meeting Should Have Started Earlier
It Was Okay

Time Was, But Location Should Have Been More Relaxed

10. What do you think was the purpose(s) of the workshop?
Develop Forum To Communicate Between Citizens

And Professionals

For Foresters To Learn How To Communicate With Public
Examine Ways To Involve Minorities

For Foresters To Learn What Citizens Want

For Foresters & Citizens To Learn From Each Other
Obtain Citizen Input

Get People Involved In Forestry Issues

To Develop A Community Participation Model

To Find Out If There Is Interest In Urban Forestry Programs
Inform / Educate The Public

Find Out What Citizens Know About Environmental Issues
For Citizens To Learn What Foresters Do

Satisfy Grant/Thesis Requirements

Don't Know. It Wasn't Stated

To Make Citizens Aware That Foresters & Agencies Are

A Resource To Be Used

Develop A Model For Future Meetings

To Find Out What Citizens Want From Forestry

And The Professionals

Improve The Image Of Natural Resource Agencies

To Get Foresters To Talk To People

Make Foresters Aware Of An Urban Perspective Of Forestry
To Save Trees

For Citizens To Learn The Role Of The Forest Service
Find Out How Foresters Can Help Citizens

To Develop A Community Participation Model

96

38

:GGI-li-‘h-ﬁ

u
N

y—i
p...

QHHHHNNNuws-ae

66

696956:

65

HNWQGOO

28

12

13
10

ﬂ

‘1:

1

O‘SUOW

WU)

HHHF‘NNN

11. What aspects of the workshop do you think were good,
and should deﬁnitely be kept?

The Format For The Meeting - Small Groups

Free Dinner

Opportunity To Express Your Viewpoints

Interaction Between Foresters & Citizens

Interest By Minorities

Atmosphere. It Felt Very Positive

Discussion About Forest Values

Using Broad (N on-Controversial) Questions

Summarizing Findings At The End

Number Of Participants

Learning From Others

Networking Opportunities

Discussion Topics

Finding Out How Foresters Can Help The Community

12. What aspects of the workshop should be discarded

or reworked?
Stronger Facilitators
Make Meeting Longer
What Will Come Of The Meeting???
Need To Explain Meeting Objectives Better
Try To Put People At Ease From The Beginning -
More Time In Last Part (The Summarizing Section)
There Was Too Much Suspicion
Discuss Concrete Strategies For Involving Minorities
Need A Specific Set Of Questions To Discuss With Citizens
Move Social Time To End Of Meeting
Don't Summarize What Was Learned. It Is Repetitive
More Time In Small Groups
Groups Didn't Allow For Free Information Exchange
Last Part, Where Only One Person Draws Conclusions
The Questions. They Were Too Broad & Vague
Shorten Meeting
Role Of Foresters Was Not Made Clear
Change Time To Earlier In The Day
Food & Social Hour Is A Waste Of Time

97

31 41
8 11

“(II
p—s
N

COOGU-‘NNN&&
HUABQ-‘lQG-hhﬂ

COGCGH-‘HHHH‘NNNNNNNA
HHﬂMMCOGOQCGGOQMGV-‘C

Meeting Had Too Few Participants

13. Do you have any other suggestions for making
the workshops better?
Don't Let Anyone Dominate Discussions
Identify & Explain What The Next Steps Will Be
Better Initial Introductions
Get More Citizens To Attend
More Time In Last Part (The Summarizing Section)
Provide The Citizens With Forestry Information & Contacts
Need To Explain Meeting Objectives Better
Circulate The Sign-In Sheet, So People Will Have Contacts
More Qualified Facilitators; Not Graduate Students
Invite More Woods Workers & Producers, Rather
Than Agency Foresters
Foresters Need To Listen With An Open Mind. Failure
To Do So Stymied Conversation At My Table
Make Meeting Longer
Separate Foresters & Citizens During Dinner - They
Will get To Know Each Other & Communicate More
Have A Follow-up Meeting On A Specific Topic Or Issue
More Citizens Per Forester
More Outreach
Have A Local Expert Discuss Past Accomplishments
Site Walks To View & Discuss Neighborhoods
Provide The Citizens With Forestry Information
Follow Up With Participants After Meeting With A Summary
Get A Larger Room To Eliminate Other Groups'
Background Noise
Serve An Actual Dinner, Not Just Appetizers
Provide More Information (Slides, Videos, Etc.)
Have Citizens Bring Questions With Them For The Foresters
Have Agencies State A Position On Issues
Discuss Ways To Obtain Funding For Tree-Related Projects
State Importance Of Listening To Others; Not Just Speaking

14. Do you have any suggestions for getting people who have

not been unvolved with forestry issues to come
to a workshop like this?

98

HHHNNNUMU-ﬁ-

ﬂﬂ

COGOOGOF‘H

GGOOGO

OOGUQGOOQN

NO

Hui-AHHHAQQ

ﬂﬂﬂﬂﬂﬂ

Contact Schools, Civic, Outdoor & Neighborhood Groups
Encourage People To Bring A Friend

More Publicity / Advertisements

More Outreach

Contact Neighborhood & Community Leaders
Have A Local, Rather Than An Outsider Make Contacts
Schedule Meeting Further In Advance

Let People Know What Is "In It" For Them
Continue To Offer Free Dinner

Use A Controversial Issue

Survey Citizens To See Who Might Be Interested
Announce In Church Bulletins

Along With Minorities, Target Low-Income Whites
People Won't Come Unless An Issue Affects Them
Personal Invitations, Not Public Announcements
Contact Environmental Groups

Put Up Flyers In Parks And Natural Areas

Solicit Help From Agencies Before The Meeting
Solicit Names From Attendees

Contact Minority Groups Such As NAACP

Tell People There Will Be Follow-up

Provide Citizens With Information

Ask People To Spread The Word

15. Was the evening worth your time?
Yes

No

Somewhat

Somewhat. Citizens Were Too Angry

16. Would you attend another similar workshop?

Yes

No

Maybe

Maybe, But Only If Citizens' Questions Are Addressed

17. Are you interested in receiving the results of the project?
Yes
No

99

10 15
8 15

hill
p—i
p—i

HHHHHGNGGHOOGGMOOOMA

QQGQcH—r-AHHHHHH—lr-AHHN

41 67
1 2
0 3
2 0

3855
42
211
02

4469
02

Maybe

100

REFERENCES t

Amstein, SR. 1977. A ladder of citizen participation. In P. Marshall (ed). Citizen

Participation Certiﬁcation for Community Development. National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Ofﬁcials, Washington DC. pp 40-49.

Behan, R.W. 1966. The myth of the omnipotent forester. Journal of Forestry. 64(6): 398-
407.

Behan, R.W. 1975. Forestry and the end of innocence. American Forests. 81(5): 16-19,
38, 40-42, 45-49.

Behan, R.W. 1988. A plea for constituency-based management. Meﬁcaﬂorests.
94(7,8): 46-48.

Behan, R.W. 1990. Multiresource forest management: A paradigmatic challenge to
professional forestry. Journal of Forestry. 88(4): 12-18.

Behan, R.W. 1990. The RPA/NF MA: Solution to a nonexistent problem. Journal of
ForestLy. 88(5): 20-25.

Bengston, D.N.1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and
Natural Resources. 7 :5 15-33.

Bengston, D.N., D.P. Fan, and D.N. Celarier. 1999. A new approach to monitoring the
social environment for natural resource management and policy: The case of US national

forest beneﬁts and values. Journal of Environmental Management. 56: 181-93.

Berry, J. 1981. Beyond citizen participation: Effective advocacy before administrative
agencies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 17(4): 463-477.

Bliss, J .C. 2000 Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry. 98(12): 4-9.

Brown, G. and CC. Hanis Jr. 1992a. National forest management and the “tragedy of the
commons”: A multidisciplinary perspective. Society and Natural Resources. 5(1): 67-83.

Brown, G. and CC. Harris Jr. 1992b. The US. Forest Service: Toward the new resource
management paradigm? . Society and Natural Resources. 5(3): 231-245.

Brown, G. and CC. Harris Jr. 1993. The implications of work force diversiﬁcation in the
US. Forest Service. Administration and Society. 25(1): 85-113.

Bultena, G. and J .C. Hendee. 1972. Forester views of interest group positions on forest
policy. Journal of Forem. 70(6): 337-342.

101

Campbell, G.R.. (Ed .). 1998. Race mixing and ethnogenesis. (Ch15). Many Americas:
Critiaal perspectives on race, graism, and ethnicity. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, 285-290.

Clark, RN. and G.H. Stankey. 1976. Analyzing public input to resource decisions:
Criteria, principles and case examples of the Codinvolve System. Natural Resources
Journal. 16(1): 213-236.

Clawson, M. 1975. Forests for whom and for what? Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Cortrrer, H.J. and MA. Shannon. 1993. Embedding public participation in its political
context. J ournal of Forestry. 91(7): 14-16.

Crafts, EC. 1973. Foresters of trial. Jourml of Forestry. 71(1): 14-17.

Cupps, D.S. 1977. Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration
Review. 37(5): 478-487.

Daniels, SE. and GB. Walker. 1996. Collaborative learning: Improving public
deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environmerlal Impact Assessment
Review. 16(2): 71 -102.

Doble, J. & A. Richardson. 1992. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist. . .Technology
Review. January: 51-54.

Fischer, B.C., S.G. Pennington and B.Tormoehlen. 1993. Public involvement in Indiana
forestry. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 28-31.

Force, J .E. and KL. Williams. 1989. A proﬁle of national forest planning participants.
Joumarl of Forestry. 87(1): 33-38.

Frear, S.T. 1973. Confrontation vs. communication: Confessions of a government PR
man. Jew] of Forestry. 71(10): 650-652.

Freemuth, J. 1996. Emergence of ecosystem management: Reinterpreting the gospel?
Society and Natural Resources. 91411-417.

Furze, B., T. DeLacy & Birckhead. 1996. Frameworks for understanding conservation
and development through protected areas. (Ch.1). Culture. Conservation and
Biodiversity: The Social Dimenaion of Linking Local Developmerml Conservation
thrcMr Protected Arejas. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Gericke, KL. and J. Sullivan. 1994. Public participation and appeals of Forest Service
plans — an empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources. 7(2): 125-135.

102

Gerlach, LP. and D.N. Bengston. 1994. If ecosystem management is the solution, what’s
the problem? Journal of Forestry. 92(8): 18-21.

Ghai, Y. 2001. Public Participation and Minorities. London: Minority Rights Group
International.

Godschalk, DR. and B. Stiftel. 1981. Making waves: Public participation in state water
planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 17(4): 597-614.

Grumbine, RE. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conaeryation Biology. 8(1): 27-
38.

Hadden, S. 1981. Technical information for citizen participation. The J ourn_al of Applied
Behavioral Science. 17(4): 537-549.

Hendee, J .C., R.N. Clark and G.H. Stankey. 1974. A framework for agency use of public
input in resource decision-making. Journal of Soilﬁ and Water Conservation. 29(2): 60-66.

Henning, DH. 1987. Wilderness politics: Public participation and values. Environmental
Management. 11(3): 283-293.

Iverson, DC. and RM. Alston. 1993. Ecosystem-based forestry requires a broader
economic focus. Journal of Sustainable Forest_ry. 1(2): 97-106.

Johnston, M. 1986. Community forestry: A question of priorities. Arboricultural Journal.
1 0: 95-100.

Jones, S.B., A.E. Luloff and J .C. Finley. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: Facing our
“myths.” Journal of Forestry. 93(9): 41-44.

Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1983. Cognition and the environment: Functioning in an
uncertain world. Ann Arbor, MI.: Ulrich’s.

Kauﬁnan, H. 1960. The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore:
John Hopkins Press.

Kessler, W.B. 1991. New perspectives for the Forest Service. Journal of Soil and Wat—Cl:
Conservation. 46(1): 6-7.

King, C.S., K.M. Feltey, and B. O’Neill Susel. 1998. The question of participation:

Toward authentic participation in public administration. Public Administration Review.
58(4): 317-330.

103

Knight, R.L. & P.B. Landres. (Eds). 1998. Overcoming boundaries: The greater
Yellowstone ecosystem. (Chl 1). Stewardship Across Boundaries. Washington, DC:
Island Press, 237-253.

Knopp, TB. and ES. Caldback. 1990. The role of participatory democracy in forest
management. Journal of Forestry. 88(5): 13-18.

Landre, B. and B. Knuth. 1993. The role of agency goals and local context in Great Lakes
water resources public involvement programs. Environmental Management. 17(2): 153-
165.

Landry, C. 2000. The creative city. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Lauber, TB. and BA. Knuth. 1997. Fairness in moose management decision-making:
The citizens’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25(4): 776-787.

Lauber, TB. and BA. Knuth. 1998. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case
study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources. 12(1): 19-37.

Leland, DD. 1992. Combining conservation and commercial goals in private forests.
Forest Products J ouml. 42(10): 15-17.

Loorrris, J .B. 1993. Natural resource use interactions: The key to modern public land
management. (Ch. 1). Integgted Public Lands Management. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1-17.

Madden, RB. 1990. The forestry challenge of the nineties. Journal of Forestry. 88(1): 36-
39.

Marshall, P. (ed). 1977. Citizen Participation Certiﬁcation for Commqu Development.
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Ofﬁcials, Washington DC.

Maser, C. 1994. Sustainable forestry through adaptive ecosystem management in an
open-ended experiment. (Ch.16). Sustainable forestry: Philosophy, Science and
Economics. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 303-340.

 

McQuillan, AG. 1990. Is national forest planning incompatible with a land ethic?
Western Wildlanﬁ. 15(4): 7-11.

Merriam, L.C. Jr. 1963. Public forests, recreation, and foresters. Journal of Forespy.
61(9): 640-642.

Nelson, K.S. & L.F. Weschler. 1996. “Whose planning perspective?” Proceeding, 6th
International Symposium on Society & Natural Resource Management. Penn St.

104

O’Loughlin, J. 1990. Has participatory democracy killed forest planning? Journal of
Forestg. 88(5): 19.

Parker, J .K. 1992. Hanging question marks on our professions: addressing the human
dimensions of forestry and natural resource management. Journal of Forestry. 90(4): 21-
24.

Peterson, D.L. & D.R. Johnson (Eds). 1995. Global warming and conﬂict management:
Resident native peoples and protected areas. (Ch. 12). Human Ecology and Climate
Change: People and Resources in the Fa; North. Taylor & Francis, 187-196.

Peterson, D.L. & D.R. Johnson (Eds.). 1995. Common property resource management
and northern protected areas. (Ch.14). Human Ecology and Climate Change: People and
Resources in the Far North. Taylor & Francis, 207-217.

Randolph, J. 1987. Comparison of approaches to public lands planning. Trends. 24(2):
36-45.

Redelsheimer, CL. 1996. Enhancing forest management through public involvement: An
industrial landowner ’s experience. Journal of Forestry. 94(3): 24-27.

Reinke, KB. and B. Reinke. 1973. Public involvement in resource decisions: A national
forest seeks public input for recreation development. J puma] of Forestry 71(10): 656-
658. '

Rolston, H., III and J. Coufal 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management.
Journal] of Forestry. 89(4): 35-40.

Sample, VA. 1993. A framework for public participation in natural resource
decisionmaking. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 22-27.

Sampson, RN. 1988. A new charter for national forests? American F oreg. 94(3): 17-20.

Saunier, R.E. & R.A. Meganck. (Eds). 1995. Integrating park and regional planning
through an ecosystem approach (Ch.5). Conservation of biodiversity and the new
regional planning. Organizations of American States and the IUCN — The World
Conservation Union, 53-66.

Saunier, R.E. & R.A. Meganck. (Eds.). 1995. Strengthening regional planning through
community education (Ch.7). Conservation of biodiversity and the new regional
planning. Organizations of American States and the IUCN — The World Conservation
Union, 75-92.

Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental
planning and management. Environmental Management. 19(2): 189-195.

105

Shands, W.E. 1988. Beyond multiple use: Managing national forests for distinctive
values. American Foresta. 94(3/4): 14-15, 56-57.

Shindler, B., P. List and BS. Steel. 1993. Managing federal forests: Public attitudes in
Oregon and nationwide. J ournﬂ of Forestry. 91(7): 36-42.

Sirmon, J .M., W.E. Shards and C. Liggitt. 1993. Communities of interest and open
decisionmaking. Journal of Forestry. 91(7): 17-21.

Slover, BL. 1996. A music of opinions: Collaborative planning for the Charles C. Dean
Wilderness. Journal of Forestry. 94(3): 18-23.

Smith, RD, and M.H.. McDonough. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in
natural resource decision making. Society an:d Natural Resources. 14: 239-249.

Smith, P.D., M.H. McDonough and MT. Mang. 1999. Ecosystem management and
public participation: Lessons from the field. Jourpal of Forestry. 97(10): 32-38.

Sommer, R., F. Leary, J. Summit and M. Tirrell. 1994. Social Beneﬁts of Residential
Involvement in Tree Planting. Journal of Arboriculture. 20(6): 323-328.

Stankey, G.H., J .C. Hendee and RN. Clark. 1975. Applied social research can improve
participation in resource decision making. Rural Sociology. 40(1): 67-74.

Susskind, L. and M. Elliott. 1981. Learning ﬁom citizen participation and citizen action
in Western Europe. The Journal of Applied Behﬂral Science. 17(4): 497-517.

Syme, GI. and E. Eaton. 1989. Public involvement as a negotiation process. Journal of
Social Issues. 45(1): 87—107.

Taylor, RP. 1992. Our limits transgressed: Environmental political thought in America.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Tipple, T.J. and J .D. Welhnan. 1989. Life in the ﬁshbowl: Public participation rewrites
public foresters ’ job descriptions. Journal of Forestry. 87(3): 24-30.

Tipple, T.J. and J .D. Wellrnan. 1991. Herbert Kaufman’s forest ranger 30 years later:
From simplicity and homogeneity to complexity and diversity. Public Administration
Review. 51(5): 421-428.

Twight, B.W. 1977. Conﬁdence or more controversy: whither public involvement?
Journal of Forestry. 75(2): 93-95.

Twight, B.W. and F.J. Lyden. 1988. Multiple use vs. organizational commitment. Forest
Science. 34(2): 474-486.

106

Wagar, J .A. and W.S. Folkman. 1974. Public participation in forest management
decisions. Journal of Forestry. 72(7): 405-407.

Wandersman, A. 1979. User participation in planning environments: A conceptual
framework. Environment agl Behavior. 11(4): 465-482.

Welhnan, J .D. and T.J. Tipple. 1990. Public forestry and direct democracy. m
Environmental Professional. 12: 77-86.

West, P.C. & SR. Brechin (Eds). 1991. National parks, protected areas, and resident
peoples: A comparative assessment and integration. (Ch.29). Resident Peoples app

National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press, 363-400.

Xu, 2., and D.N. Bengston. 1997. Trends in national forest values among forestry
professionals, environmentalists, and the news media, 1982-1993. Society and Natural
Resources. 10: 43-59.

107

   
    

lljlilijjiijjjjjlljtil

4