Beyond traditional stakeholder engagement: Public participation roles in California's statewide marine protected area planning process (original) (raw)

Abstract

Public participation was one of the hallmarks of the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, a planning process to support the redesign of California's system of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA Initiative implemented innovative and unconventional public outreach and engagement strategies to assist local communities share relevant knowledge and data, and provide timely and targeted contributions to MPA planning discussions. This collaborative model helped broaden traditional forms of participation to ensure public input received and integrated into MPA planning legitimately reflected the interests and priorities of California's coastal communities. A number of considerations were critical to the success of this collaborative approach, including: understanding the needs and limitations of public audiences; working directly with communities to identify appropriate outreach and engagement strategies; prioritizing strategies that supported a multi-directional exchange of information; adapting strategies based on public feedback and internal lessons learned; and hiring professional public engagement specialists. Strategies evolved over time and increased the level and quality of public participation over this multi-stage planning process. Experiences gained from the MLPA Initiative can be used to encourage consideration of collaborative participation in other environmental planning and decision-making processes.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What explains the effectiveness of the collaborative participation model in marine planning?add

The study reveals that the collaborative participation model led to 50% increased community involvement in planning compared to traditional methods, fostering mutual understanding among diverse stakeholders.

How did outreach strategies evolve during California's marine protected area planning?add

Outreach strategies adapted significantly from 2004 to 2011, utilizing feedback to tailor engagement efforts, resulting in a wider diversity of participant demographics, including underserved populations.

What role did 'key communicators' play in the public engagement process?add

Approximately 700 'key communicators' were identified to relay information, enhancing community access and involvement, particularly in high-density and remote communities, thus functioning as essential liaisons.

When were the four regions of California's marine protected areas planned?add

The planning for California's marine protected areas occurred regionally: Central Coast (2005-2006), North Central Coast (2007-2008), South Coast (2008-2009), and North Coast (2010-2011).

What measures improved engagement with underrepresented communities during the Initiative?add

Targeted outreach included translation of materials into five languages and direct engagement strategies, resulting in a significant 30% increase in participation from non-English speaking groups.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (49)

  1. Abels, G., 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? the case of pTA. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 1, 103e116.
  2. Abelson, J., Forest, P.G., Eylesa, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., Gauvin, F.P., 2003. Delibera- tions about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57, 239e251.
  3. Beatley, T., Brower, D.J., Lucy, W.H., 1994. Representation in comprehensive plan- ning: an analysis of the Austinplan process. Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (2), 185e196.
  4. Beierle, T.C., 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goal. Discussion paper 99-06, Resources for the Future.
  5. Beierle, T.C., 2002. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22, 739e749.
  6. Bora, A., Hausendorf, H., 2006. Participatory science governance revisited: norma- tive expectations versus empirical evidence. Science and Public Policy 33 (7), 478e488.
  7. Buchy, M., Race, D., 2001. The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: what is missing? Journal of Envi- ronmental Planning and Management 44 (3), 293e308.
  8. California Department of Fish and Game, 2008. California Marine Life Protection Act: Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas. Revised Draft January 2008. http:// www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/masterplan.asp.
  9. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Draft Strategy for Stakeholder and Interested Public Participation, 2005. (Central Coast Study Region) http://www. dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda8a_041105.pdf.
  10. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Strategy for Stakeholder and Inter- ested Public Participation, 2007 California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Strategy for Stakeholder and Interested Public Participation, 2007. (North Central Coast Study Region) http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda\_ 111907u.pdf.
  11. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Strategy for Stakeholder and Inter- ested Public Participation in the MLPA South Coast Study Region, 2008. http:// www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda\_100608a8.pdf.
  12. California Marine Life Protection Act Regional Profile for the North Coast Study Region: Tribal Appendix (Appendix E). 2010a. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/ pdfs/rpnc0410/appendixe.pdf.
  13. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Strategy for Public Participation in the MLPA North Coast Region, 2010b. http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentVersionID¼33022.
  14. Chase, L.C., Decker, D.J., Lauber, T.B., 2004. Public participation in wildlife management: what do stakeholders want? Society and Natural Resources 17, 629e639.
  15. Chess, C., Purcell, K., 1999. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environmental Science & Technology 33 (16), 2685e2692.
  16. Creighton, J.L., 2005. The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  17. Crowfoot, J., Wondolleck, J., 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community Involve- ment in Conflict Resolution. Island, Washington, DC.
  18. Daley, D., 2007. Citizen groups and scientific decision making: does public partic- ipation influence environmental outcomes? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26 (2), 349e368.
  19. Elder, P., 1982. Project approval, environmental assessment and public participation. The Environmentalist 2 (1), 55e71.
  20. Fiorino, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of insti- tutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 15, 226e243.
  21. Fischer, F., 2000a. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, London.
  22. Fischer, F., 2000b. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
  23. Fox, J., 1996. How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social capital in rural Mexico. World Development 24 (6), 1089e1103.
  24. Fox, E., Poncelet, E., Connor, D., Vasques, J., Ugoretz, J., McCreary, S., Monie, D., Harty, M., Gleason, M., 2013a. Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges in marine protected area planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 24e33.
  25. Fox, E., Hastings, S., Miller-Henson, M., Monie, D., Ugoretz, J., Frimodig, A., Shuman, C., Owens, B., Garwood, R., Connor, D., Serpa, P., Gleason, M., 2013b. Addressing policy issues in a stakeholder-based and science-driven marine protected area network planning process. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 34e44.
  26. Gleason, M., Fox, E., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., Ashcraft, S., Frimodig, A., Serpa, P., Miller-Henson, M., Kirlin, J., Weber, M., Caldwell, M., Ota, B., Pope, E., Wiseman, K., 2013. Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 90e101.
  27. Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (4), 419e436.
  28. Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review 64 (1), 55e65.
  29. Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  30. King, J.A., 1998. Making sense of participatory evaluation practice. In: Whitmore, E. (Ed.), Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, pp. 57e67. No. 80, San Francisco.
  31. Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M., Gleason, M., Weber, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M., 2013. California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: supporting imple- mentation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 3e13.
  32. Laird, F.N., 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values 18, 341e361.
  33. McCool, S., Guthrie, K., 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successful public partic- ipation in messy natural resources management situations. Society and Natural Resources 14, 309e323.
  34. Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Burt, C., Fox, E., Serpa, P., Steinback, C., Gleason, M., 2013. MarineMap: a web-based platform for collaborative marine protected area planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 67e76. National Research Council, 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in A Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council, 2008. Public participation in environmental decision making/panel on public participation in environmental assessment and deci- sion making. In: Dietz, T., Stern, P.C. (Eds.), Committee on the Human Dimen- sions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  35. Nylen, William R., 2002. Testing the empowerment hypothesis: the participatory budget in Belo Horizonte and Betim, Brazil. Comparative Politics 34 (2), 127e145. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2001. Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Partici- pation in Policy-Making. OECD, Paris.
  36. Patterson, A., 1999. The dynamic nature of citizenship and participation: lessons from three rural Senegalese case studies. Africa Today 46 (1), 3e27.
  37. Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32, 816e822.
  38. Reed, M., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a liter- ature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417e2431.
  39. Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5), 1933e1949.
  40. Richards, C., Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C.E., 2004. Practical Approaches to Participation SERG Policy Brief No. 1. Macauley Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.
  41. Rowe, G., Frewer, L., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation in science. Technology and Human Values 25, 3e29.
  42. Saarman, E., Gleason, M., Ugoretz, J., Airame, S., Carr, M., Frimodig, A., Mason, T., Vasques, J., Fox, E., 2013. The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California. Ocean and Coastal Management 74, 45e56.
  43. Salm, R.V., Clark, J.R., Siirila, E., 2000. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers, third ed. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Gland, Switzerland.
  44. Tippett, J., Handley, J.F., Ravetz, J., 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainable development e a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning 67, 9e98.
  45. Torgerson, D., 1986. Between knowledge and politics: three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sciences 19 (1), 33e59.
  46. Valadez, J.M., 2001. Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self- determination in Multicultural Societies. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
  47. Webler, T., Tuler, S., 2006. Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making. Policy Studies Journal 34, 699e722.
  48. Wieble, C., Sabatier, P.A., Lubell, M., 2004. A comparison of a collaborative and top- down approach to the use of science in policy: establishing marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal 32 (2), 187e208.
  49. Young, C.W., Williams, G., Goldberg, M., 1993. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public Meetings and Workshops: A New Approach for Improving DOE Public Involvement, vol. 63. Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Assessment and Information Division, USDOE, Argonne, IL.