Viewpoint: Implications of Participatory Democracy for Public Land Planning

Abstract

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.

Understanding the Multidimensionality of Property Rights Orientations: Evidence from Utah and Texas Ranchers

“…In particular, growth in public support for environmental programs (Elliot et al 1997), more restrictive environmental legislation and regulations (Greve 1994), and greater public involvement in resource management decision-making processes (Endter-Wada et al 1998;Moote and McClaran 1997) are increasingly affecting the ways that public and private rangelands are managed in the western United States. Similarly, as pressure grows to subdivide private rangelands for primary and secondary home construction, there are increasing calls to enact laws to limit where, how, and when this type of development can occur (Ringholz 1996).…”

UC plays a crucial facilitating role in the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project

“…As for the Forest Service, it has been argued that full decision making authority cannot be devolved or abdicated outside of Congress's reach (Coggins 1999;Moote and McClaran 1997). This possible hurdle was raised at the beginning of the project in 2005, and again in April of 2008 by many participants in SNAMP workshops because of their aspiration to have true comanagement with the Forest Service, including shared decision making.…”

Les intentions des programmes de participation du public appliqués par l’industrie forestière : état de la situation au Québec

“…Ces séances de formation ont lieu la plupart du temps sur le terrain. Elles se déroulent dans un cadre assez informel qui facilite les échanges (Moote et McClaran 1997).…”