1. Lecture 10: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCE ELICITATION 1Landscape Preferences 2General Public Involvement 3Public perception testing

2. LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES Directly measured from people/viewers Specific visual preferences (like/dislike) vs. general preferences (affected by visual and non-visual influences) Instinctive (inherent) vs. cultural/learned/familiar

3. 1.1INHERENT LANDSCAPE VALUES (INSTINCTIVE PREFERENCES)

11. 1.2SOCIO-CULTURAL LANDSCAPE VALUES/MEANINGS

17. 2GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Indicator 19 Forest management responds to a wide range of social values through effective planning processes that involve inclusive consultation with stakeholders (CANFOR SFM Framework)

18. Questions? Is it easy to get good public participation (problems)?

19. Common problems Hostility and conflict Unsatisfactory consultation/planning approaches: low levels of meaningful engagement and poor transparency of process Consultation often ignores less organized and less vocal groups Little effective learning on either side

20. A hierarchy of public involvement processes Communicating to the public Listening to the public 2-way dialogue/decision-making

21. Communicating to the public

22. Listening to the public Social science research methods

23. Respondents’ resource values in order of priority ( Arrow Forest District Survey)  Water  Maintaining sustained flow of water  Maintaining or restoring fish populations to natural levels and fluctuations  Maintaining natural levels of sedimentation  Ecosystem  Maintaining long-term soil fertility  Protecting habitat for fish and the full range of native wildlife species  Maintaining slope stability/preventing soil erosion  Jobs  Recreation  Visual Quality  Timber  Safety

24. Two-way dialogue and decision-making 1 Inclusive data gathering: –Early public/stakeholder scoping –Incorporate local knowledge 2 Collaborative public processes: –Iterative workshops/trust-building –Consideration of alternatives –Joint decision-making

25. What makes a good process? An inclusive, open and accountable process A comprehensive, credible, scientifically supported process Assuring sustainability through learning

26. A MENU OF PUBLIC PROCESSES/TECHNIQUES (Summarised from SFM Network KETE document) Public meetings Open houses Surveys Focus group meetings Round table negotiations Public advisory groups/committees Design workshops Etc.

27. Hearing from the silent majority Example: Arrow Forest District Mail-Survey

28. Public Advisory Groups Workable but…. Sometimes selective representation Agendas influenced by organizer's priorities (usually industry) Not necessarily systematic or structured input to decisions

29. Stakeholder Analysis Documented process for systematic identification of : All affected stakeholders All responsible stakeholders/actors Interested stakeholders

30. Stakeholders/Participants

31. 3PREFERENCE ELICITATION AND PERCEPTION TESTING More to public participation than preference elicitation (dialogue, decision-making, monitoring etc.)

32. Respondents Response stimuli (medium/content) Response types: –Cognitive (knowing) –Affective (liking, feeling) –Evaluative (recommending) Perception testing variables

33. Processes for public input to landscape assessment (VRM) - rare! USFS: Constituent analysis US Bureau of Land Management: Visual Sensitivity workshops BCMoF Open Houses for VLI Surveys on visual issues

35. Public Input

36. Eliciting the public’s landscape perceptions Direct viewer sensitivity/concern measurement Typical products: –Map of preferred areas/points/features –Selected or ranked photos of preferred scenes/conditions –Expressed preferences related to measurable/identified landscape characteristics or responses to photographs/visualizations

37. Rural Oliver Special Places / Features 210 “photo” points selected

38. Town of Oliver Out of Character Industry in Town Airport Southern Gateway –116 points selected

40. Resident survey at workshops

42. Community-based Photo-survey Results: Sample from Royston, Vancouver Island Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.6 Prepared by: Cecilia Achiam

43. Example: Preferences of First Nation community (Cheam Band) for stream restoration options Compatible/Incompatible (no. of comments): 0/12 8/5 66/0

45. 3PREFERENCE ELICITATION AND PERCEPTION TESTING More to public participation than preference elicitation (dialogue, decision-making, monitoring etc.) Perceptions versus preferences Different kinds of perceptions/preferences: –General perceptions/preferences –Aesthetic perceptions/preferences

46. RECAP Public participation versus perception testing General perceptions/preferences versus visual perceptions/preferences One way versus 2-way processes Multiple methods (pros and cons)