No abstract

/ Application of participatory democracy theory to public participation in public land planning, while widely advocated, has not been closely examined. A case study is used here to explicate the application of participatory democracy concepts to public participation in public land planning and decision making. In this case, a Bureau of Land Management resource area manager decided to make a significant shift from the traditional public involvement process to a more participatory method-coordinated resource management (CRM). This case was assessed using document analysis, direct observation of CRM meetings, questionnaires, and interviews of key participants. These sources were used to examine the CRM case using participatory democracy concepts of efficacy, access and representation, continuous participation throughout planning, information exchange and learning, and decision-making authority. The case study suggests that social deliberation in itself does not ensure successful collaboration and that establishing rules of operation and decision making within the group is critical. Furthermore, conflicts between the concept of shared decision-making authority and the public land management agencies' accountability to Congress, the President, and the courts need further consideration.KEY WORDS: Case study; Coordinated resource management; Public participation; Administrative discretion; Representation; Consensus; Collaboration

No abstract

/ The classical model of a paradigm shift is used to explore changes that are occurring in public lands and water resources management. Recent policy developments suggest that the traditional paradigm, which is characterized by sustained yield, is in the process of being invalidated. While no new paradigm has been fully accepted, the emerging paradigm does appear to be based on two principles: ecosystem management and collaborative decision making. Implementation of these two principles is likely to require extensive revision of traditional management practices and institutions. Failure to address these issues could result in adoption of the rhetoric of change without any lasting shift in management practices or professional attitudes.In the United States, the land and water resources professions first developed during the progressive era, when rational neutral, fact-based science was being advanced as the appropriate basis for agency administration. This coincided with the promotion of positivistic thought throughout the sciences, in which empirical measurements were the mark of "good science." Professionalism, since the progressive era, has been epitomized by the neutral expert who bases decisions solely on these empirical measurements and methods and who is in no way tainted by political ideology.During the past three decades, and largely as a response to increased demands placed on natural resources during the postwar years, the progressive ideals of neutral public administration and positive science have both come under attack (Reich 1985). This has been a period of growing environmental awareness and decreasing trust in administrative neutrality, characterized by cries for public choice, administrative accountability, and environmental protection. Traditional public support for the natural resources agencies rapidly eroded during the 1970s as public involvement in science and government grew.Several researchers have suggested that what is now required in public lands and water resources management is a radical revision of professional perspectives, values, and management practices, in other KEY WORDS: Decision making; Ecosystem management; Institutional change; Paradigm; Policy; Public lands management; Water resources *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.words, a paradigm shift (Behan 1990, Brooks and Grant 1992, Kessler and others 1992, This paper utilizes the classical model of a paradigm shift to explore the changes that are occurring in the area of public lands and water resources management. The key features of scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts are indicated and compared to current trends in land and water resources management. We found that the body of information contradictory to the rational, scientific model of resource management has accumulated to a point that the traditional paradigm appears to have been invalidated. While a new paradigm has yet to be accepted, tile emerging paradigm appears to be based on two principles: ecosystem managenmnt and collaborative deci...

Non-traditional, collaborative public participation approaches such as coordinated resource management have been proposed to improve the public participation process used in public land planning on rangelands. Either implicitly or explicitly, most advocates of such non-traditional approaches to public participation seem to embrace a participatory democracy model of governance. Whether or not thii model for decision-making can practicably be implemented, given our current institutional and legal frameworks for public lands management, has not been closely examined. Criticisms of the traditional public participation process are categorized into 5 main issues: efficacy; representation and access; information exchange and learning; continuity of participation; and decision-making authority. We use these categories to evaluate the feasibility of implementing participatory democracy-based decision-making in public lands planning. Although there is some statutory and regulatory authority for participatory democracy in public land planning, there are a number of logistical, legal, and even philosophical challenges to its application that warrant further consideration. legal authority underlying collaborative processes should be examined carefully. For example, what changes to the traditional public participation process are required, what logistical problems will be encountered, and what legal authority is available for a collaborative planning process? To shed some light on these questions, we review the evolution of public land planning and the traditional approach to public participation. We then present criticisms of the traditional approach, organized into 5 issues: efficacy; representation and access; information exchange and learning; continuity of participation; and decision-making authority. Either implicity or explicitly, many of these criticisms and recommendations for change are based in participatory democracy theory. We use these categories as the framework to examine participatory democracy approaches to public participation, particularly their authority in statute and regulation and their logistical demands. We intend for this analysis to illustrate some of the ramifications of decisions based in participatory democracy theory and instigate further discussion and debate over the applicability and appropriateness of participatory democracy in public land planning.