Abstract
In the United States, forest governance practices have utilized a variety of public participation mechanisms to improve decision-making and instill public legitimacy. However, comments, one of the most frequent and accessible avenues for the public to provide input, has received little attention. Further, there has been no analysis of the ways that government actors utilize this form of public participation in their decision-making. I empirically examine responses to public comments across the United States Forest Service to understand how they handle and deal with public feedback on forestry projects. I employed two qualitative approaches that examine comment handling processes and agency justifications for responding to comments. Through this empirical work, I found that agency employees utilize a range of strategies to handle and respond to public concerns. I present data suggestive that most public comments received are outside of agency personnel decision-making capacity and thus, personnel respond to comments in ways that deny their worth and block those concerns from project agenda setting. Understanding how the United States Forest Service thinks about and deals with public input will help forest managers and public commenters better negotiate efficacy in projects and decisions that affect forestland areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This process is specific to the USFS and has changed over time. The objection process formally replaced an earlier appeal process in 2014. Originally a record of decision was finalized without a previous draft version. Ultimately, this new process allows the USFS to receive an additional round of public feedback before finalizing their decision.
Other job titles include NEPA Specialist, Environmental Coordinator, Planning Specialist, etc.
Aaron (forest environmental coordinator) mention a software called CARA (Comment Analysis and Response Application) to help categorize comments within each within each comment letter, but they typically just use an Excel spreadsheet to organize and respond to public comments.
There is also a local community financial dependence on such projects that include loggers, mill workers, pipefitters, etc.
References
Adkin LE, Hanson LL, Kahane D, Parkins JR, Patten S (2017) Can public engagement democratize environmental policymaking in a resource-dependent state? comparative case studies from Alberta, Canada. Environ Politics 26:301–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1244967
Arts I, Buijs AE, Verschoor G (2018) Regimes of justification: competing arguments and the construction of legitimacy in Dutch nature conservation practices. J Environ Plan Manag 61:1070–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1319346
Bachrach P, Baratz MS (1963) Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework. Am Political Sci Rev 57:632–642. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952568
Bachrach P, Baratz MS (1962) Two faces of power. Am Political Sci Rev 56:947–952
Bartlett R (2005) Ecological reason in administration: environmental impact assessment and green politics. In: Paehlke R, Torgerson D (eds) Managing leviathan: environmental politics and the administrative state. Broadview Press Ltd., Ontario, CA, p 47–58
Bartlett R, Kurian P (1999) The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making. Policy Politics 27:415–433
Beckley TM (2014) Public engagement, planning, and politics in the forest sector in New Brunswick 1997–2014. J New Brunsw Stud 5:41–65
Behan R (1990) The RPA/NFMA: solution to a nonexistent problem. J For 88:20–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/88.5.20
Blahna DJ, Yonts-Shepard S (1989) Public involvement in resource planning: toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Soc Nat Resour 2:209–227
Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification: economies of worth. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Brisbois MC, de Loë RC (2016) State roles and motivations in collaborative approaches to water governance: a power theory-based analysis. Geoforum 74:202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.012
Broussard SR, Whitaker BD (2009) The magna charta of environmental legislation: a historical look at 30 years of NEPA-forest service litigation. Policy Econ 11:134–140
Brulle RJ (2000) Agency, democracy, and nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA
Cobb R, Ross M (1997) Cultural strategies of agenda denial: avoidance, attack, and redefinition. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Cook JJ (2015) Who’s pulling the fracking strings? power, collaboration and Colorado fracking policy. Environ Policy Gov 25:373–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1680
Cortner H, Margaret M (1999) The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, DC
Culhane PJ (1981) Public lands politics: interest group influence on the forest service and the bureau of land management. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Dietz T, Stern P (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Espeland WN (2000) Bureaucratizing democracy, democratizing bureaucracy. Law Soc Inq 25:1077–1109
Glaser BG (2001) The grounded theory perspective: conceptualization contrasted with description. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine Transaction, Chicago, IL
Greenwald H (2008) Organizations: management without control. Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA
Hartley N, Wood C (2005) Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:319–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002
Hirt PW (1996) Conspiracy of optimism: management of the national forests since World War Two. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE
Howlett M, Ramesh M (1995) Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Ibarra PR, Kitsuse JI (1993) Vernacular constituents of moral discourse: an interactionist proposal for the study of social problems. In: Miller G, Holstein JA (eds) Constructionist controversies: issues in social problems theory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY
Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract 5:419–436
Linke S, Jentoft S (2016) Ideals, realities and paradoxes of stakeholder participation in EU fisheries governance. Environ Sociol 2:144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2016.1155792
Lukes S (1974) Power: a radical view. Macmillan Press, London, UK
Mascarenhas M, Scarce R (2004) “The intention was good”: legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Soc Nat Resour 17:17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920490247227
May C (2013) Power across scales and levels of fisheries governance: explaining the active non-participation of fishers in Two Rivers, North Carolina. J Rural Stud 32:26–37
Milner D (1996) Children and racism: beyond the value of the dolls. In: Robinson WP (ed) Social groups and identities: developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK
Miner AM, Malmsheimer RW, Keele DM, Mortimer MJ (2010) Twenty years of forest service national environmental policy act litigation. Environ Pract 12:116–126
Momtaz S, Gladstone W (2008) Ban on commercial fishing in the estuarine waters of New South Wales, Australia: community consultation and social impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:214–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.001
Morrison-Saunders A, Early G (2008) What is necessary to ensure natural justice in environmental impact assessment decision-making? Impact assess. Proj Apprais 26:29–42. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X303210
Mortimer MJ, Stern MJ, Malmsheimer RW, Blahna DJ, Cerveny LK, Seesholtz DN (2011) Environmental and social risks: defensive national environmental policy act in the US forest service. J For 109:27–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/109.1.27
Norgaard KM (2019) Salmon and acorns feed our people: colonialism, nature, and social action. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ
O’Faircheallaigh C (2010) Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:19–27
Parkins JR (2010) The problem with trust: insights from advisory committees in the forest sector of Alberta. Soc Nat Resour 23:822–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802545792
Parkins JR, Mitchell RE (2005) Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 18:529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947977
Purdy JM (2012) A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Adm Rev 72:409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431
Ryfe DM (2005) Does deliberative democracy work? Annu Rev Political Sci 8:49–71
Scardina AV, Mortimer MJ, Dudley L (2007) Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA Forest Service public involvement processes. Policy Econ 9:883–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.07.003
Steelman T (2000) Agency perceptions about public involvement in national forest management. In: Addams H, Proops J (eds) Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of q methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, Northampton, MA
Steelman T (1999) The public comment process: what do citizens contribute to national forest management? J For 97:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/97.1.22
Steen HK (2013) The U.S. forest service: a centennial history. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA
Stewart JMP, Sinclair AJ (2007) Meaningful public participation in environmental assessment: perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents, and government J Environ Assess Policy Manag 09:161–183. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333207002743
Strauss AL, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publishing, Newbury Park, CA
Torgerson D, Paehlke R (2005) Environmental administration: revising the agenda of inquiry and practice. In: Paehlke R, Torgerson D (eds) Managing leviathan: environmental politics and the administrative state. Broadview Press Ltd., Ontario, CA, p 3–10
Vilsack T (2014) The rising cost of fire operations: effects on the forest service’s non-fire work
Weber M (1978) Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
Widick R (2009) Trouble in the forest: California’s redwood timber wars. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
Yang S (2008) Public participation in the Chinese environmental impact assessment (EIA) system. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 10:91–113. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333208002932
Acknowledgements
There were no funding or in-kind support for this project. The author wishes to extend gratitude to all the individuals who participated in this study, kindly gave up their valuable time, and so generously shared their reflections and thoughts on the complex nature of their work. Gratitude also to the blind reviewers, Richard York, Matthew Norton, Jesse Abrams, Eileen Otis, and Ryan Light for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper. Thanks also to Aaron Gullickson for helping me construct Fig. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De’Arman, K.J. Is Public Participation Public Inclusion? The Role of Comments in US Forest Service Decision-Making. Environmental Management 66, 91–104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01278-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01278-5