“The Intention Was Good”: Legitimacy, Consensus-Based Decision Making, and the Case of Forest Planning in British Columbia, Canada

Structure of causation and its influence on cooperation: A comparative study of forest management in Ontario, Canada

“…The identification of the, "increase in LCC confidence in forest management planning" criterion as the performance criterion for Case 1, further substantiates the LCC 1's focus on evaluating the legitimacy of the forest management planning process (Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004) and thus its earlier stage of development compared to LCC 2. In contrast, the performance criterion for Case 2 -"much increase in LCC understanding" -suggests that LCC 2's learning went beyond developing a sufficient level of trust in forest management planning to a more full engagement in learning about the process.…”

“…This may reflect LCC 1's earlier stage of development than LCC 2 since it had an insufficient understanding of the process and its role. As a result, it was more focused on evaluating the legitimacy of the overall forest management planning process itself (Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004) than further increasing cooperation between LCC members and DO support staff.…”

“…Legitimacy has been identified to be the single overarching theme by participants in resource management and planning processes and includes fair representation, appropriate government agency support and consensus-based decision-making (Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004). It may well be that because not all relevant interests were represented on LCC 1 and because tangible support by Case 1 support staff was lower than tangible support for Case 2 support staff, that LCC 1 members did not fully accept the legitimacy of the process.…”

The development of government agency and stakeholder cooperation: A comparative study of two Local Citizens Committees' (LCCs) participation in forest management in Ontario, Canada

“…There have been few attempts to apply deliberative democratic theory in the natural resource literature (Parkins and Mitchell, 2005) and meaningful criteria to evaluate consensus-building (Carr and Halvorsen, 2001;Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004;Tuler and Webler, 1999) is limited. Where criteria are more developed, the focus has been on the production of agreements (Carr et al, 1998;Innes et al, 1994;Moseley, 1999).…”

Different Participant Groups, Different Success Definitions: An Exploratory Study in the Case of “Local Government and NGO Cooperation in a Participatory Democracy Project”

“…al., 2004), and those who defined success criteria from their own case/empirical studies. The second group can be further categorized into two groups: first, those who determine these criteria through consultations with the participants (Carnes et al, 1998;McCool and Guthrie, 2001;Shindler and Neburka, 1997;Tuler and Webler, 1999;Webler and Tuler, 2000, 2001, 2006Webler et al, 2003;Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004;Dalton, 2006), and those who define these criteria by asking the experts and/or managers taking part in the participatory experience (Tuler et al, 2002;Mostert et al, 2007).Among the first group of scholars, some categorized the success criteria in two groups, acceptance criteria and process criteria (Rowe and Frewer, 2000;Cooper, 2002;Rowe et al, 2004). While acceptance criteria refers to features of a method that make it acceptable to the wider public, the process criteria refers to features of the process that are liable to ensure that it takes place in an effective manner.…”