Author
Listed:
- Charles C. Harris
(University of Idaho, Department of Conservation Social Sciences)
- Erik A. Nielsen
(Northern Arizona University, School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability)
- Dennis R. Becker
(University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources)
- Dale J. Blahna
(USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station)
- William J. McLaughlin
(University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources)
Abstract
Participatory processes for obtaining residents’ input about community impacts of proposed environmental management actions have long raised concerns about who participates in public involvement efforts and whose interests they represent. This study explored methods of broad-based involvement and the role of deliberation in social impact assessment. Interactive community forums were conducted in 27 communities to solicit public input on proposed alternatives for recovering wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest US. Individuals identified by fellow residents as most active and involved in community affairs (“AE residents”) were invited to participate in deliberations about likely social impacts of proposed engineering and ecological actions such as dam removal. Judgments of these AE participants about community impacts were compared with the judgments of residents motivated to attend a forum out of personal interest, who were designated as self-selected (“SS”) participants. While the magnitude of impacts rated by SS participants across all communities differed significantly from AE participants’ ratings, in-depth analysis of results from two community case studies found that both AE and SS participants identified a large and diverse set of unique impacts, as well as many of the same kinds of impacts. Thus, inclusion of both kinds of residents resulted in a greater range of impacts for consideration in the environmental impact study. The case study results also found that the extent to which similar kinds of impacts are specified by AE and SS group members can differ by type of community. Study results caution against simplistic conclusions drawn from this approach to community-wide public participation. Nonetheless, the results affirm that deliberative methods for community-based impact assessment involving both AE and SS residents can provide a more complete picture of perceived impacts of proposed restoration activities.
Suggested Citation
Charles C. Harris & Erik A. Nielsen & Dennis R. Becker & Dale J. Blahna & William J. McLaughlin, 2012.
"Results of Community Deliberation About Social Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Comparing Public Input of Self-Selected Versus Actively Engaged Community Members,"
Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 191-203, August.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:envman:v:50:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-012-9871-0
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9871-0
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:50:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-012-9871-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.