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

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

1.1INHERENT LANDSCAPE VALUES (INSTINCTIVE PREFERENCES)

1.2SOCIO-CULTURAL LANDSCAPE VALUES/MEANINGS

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)

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

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

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

Communicating to the public

Listening to the public Social science research methods

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Stakeholders/Participants

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

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

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

Public Input

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

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

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

Resident survey at workshops

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

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

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

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