INFORMATION TO USERS

INFORMATION TO USERS

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.

This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you wHl find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our

Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

Universify

Micrdllms

IntErnational

300 N. ZEEB ROAD, A N N ARBOR. M l 48106

18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WCIR 4EJ, E N G L A N D

8017779

GARCIA, MARGOT YVONNE WEAVER

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FOREST SERVICE PLANNING IN ARIZONA

The University of Arizona

PH.D. 1980

University

Microfilms

International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WCIR 4EJ, England

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FOREST SERVICE

PLANNING IN ARIZONA by

Margot Yvonne Weaver Garcia

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WITH A MAJOR IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 8 0

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read

the dissertation prepared by Margot Yvonne Weaver Garcia entitled Citizen Participation in Forest Service Planning in Arizona and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement

Doctor of Philosophy .

Date

IL

Date

Date '

Date

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate

College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

t:.

Dissertatior irector

n

Date ^

^-6

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrow­ ers under rules of the Library,

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or re­ production of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the in­ terests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to the Coronado National

Forest, Ken Weissenborn Forest Supervisor, for giving me the opportunity to work in land management planning. My thanks to Steve Plevel, Planning and Information Officer, for teaching me about the Forest Service and the art of planning. Sue McHenry, Margrett Boley, John Turner, and Mert

Richards were the other team members and shared in the tasks and suc­ cesses of our joint endeavor.

I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Stanley K. Brickler, for as my major professor, he taught me about professionalism. He encouraged me to express my viewpoints by believing in me. My thanks also to Dr.

Beverly Duncan for help and assistance.

My husband J.D. and children Athena and Karl have supported my efforts to finish my education and I thank them for understanding my absences from home during this period. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose

1.2. Objectives

1.3. Approaches

1.4. Scope

1.5. Organization

1.6. Author Comment

2. HISTORY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES . 7

2.1. Advisory Boards

2.2. Administrative Procedures Act

2.3. Maximum Feasible Participation

2.4. Power Sharing Hierarchy

2.5. Summary

3. ASSUMPTIONS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING PROCESS

FOR THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST

8

12

14

18

21

23

3.1. Citizen Participation

3.2. CNF Planning

3.3. Assumptions

3.3.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

Who Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

Through Interest Groups

3.3.2. Minority Participation Will Bring a Viewpoint

Regarding Natural Resources That Is Different

23

25

31

32 from the Anglo Majority

3.3.3. All Participating Citizens Have Different

36

Interests and Therefore Form Overlapping Publics . . 37

3.3.4. A Structured Citizen Participation Meeting

Format and Written Response Forms Can Produce

Comprehensive Information about Natural Resources

Management 38

Page vii ix x

1

2

2

4

4

5

5 iv

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

3.3.5. Forest Service Will Use Public Comment as a Basis for Issue Statements

3.3.6. As Part of Ongoing Dialogue with Its

Constituency, the Forest Service Will Provide

Feedback Regarding Public Comment

4. TECHNIQUES FOR TESTING STATED ASSUMPTIONS

40

41

43

4.1. Testing of the Stated Assumptions

4.1.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

Who Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

45

Through Interest Groups

4.1.2. Minority Participation Will Bring a

Viewpoint Regarding Natural Resources That Is

Different from the Anglo Majority

45

52

4.1.3. All Participating Citizens Have Different

Interests and Therefore Form Overlapping Publics . .

54

4.1.4. A Structured Citizen Participation Meeting

Format and Written Response Forms Can Produce

Comprehensive Information about Natural Resources

Management

4.1.5. Forest Service Will Use Public Comment as a Basis for Issue Statements

4.1.6. As Part of Ongoing Dialogue with Its

Constituency, the Forest Service Will Provide

Feedback Regarding Public Comment

55

58

61

5. RESULTS FROM TESTING ASSUMPTIONS . 62

5.1. Results from testing stated assumptions

5.1.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

Who Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

Through Interest Groups

5.1.2. Minority Participation Will Bring a

62

62

Viewpoint Regarding Natural Resources That Is

Different from the Anglo Majority . , 80

5.1.3. All Participating Citizens Have Different

Interests and Therefore Form Overlapping Publics . . 93

5.1.4. A Structured Citizen Participation Meeting

Format and Written Response Forms Can Produce

Comprehensive Information about Natural Resources

Management 97

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

5.1.5. Forest Service Will Use Public Comment

As a Basis for Issue Statements

5.1.6. As Part of Ongoing Dialogue with Its

Constituency, the Forest Service Will Provide

Feedback Regarding Public Comment . .

6. ANALYSIS

107

116

125

6.1. An Analysis of Possible Explanations as to Why

Anglos Participated and Ethnic Minorities Did Not .... 126

6.1.1. Meetings 126

6.1.2. Written Response Forms . .

6.1.3. Lack of Information

6.1.4. Efficacy

127

127

128

6.1.5. Not Interested in Natural Resource Problems . . 131

6.1.6. Land Use Planning 132

6.2. Forest Service Used Public Comments to Write Issue

Statements Itfhich Formed the Basis for Planning

6.2.1. Sources

6.2.2. Comment Analysis . .

6.2.3. Representativeness

133

134

134

136

6.2.4. Use of Public Comment

6.2.5. Feedback to the Public

6.2.6. Issue Statement Revision

137

138

139

6.3. The Role of Citizen Participation in Natural

Resource Decision-making

6.3.1. Bureaucracies

139

140

6.3.2. Increasing Representativeness in a Bureaucracy 142

6.3.3. Discrepancies between Citizen and Agency

Expectations 145

6.3.4. NFMA as an Example of Interest Group Liberal­ ism Legislation

6.4. Summary

152

156

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 160

LIST OF TABLES

Table ,

1. 1977 populations by ethnic status in Arizona counties surrounding the Coronado National Forest

Page

3

2. Membership in organizations working on city problems .... 34

3. Groups invited to be on the CNF mailing list 64

4. Statistics on response cards returned

5. How groups heard about the CNF Planning Forums

6. How ethnic groups heard about the CPP

. 66

69

71

7. Feelings of efficacy by membership in groups

8. Feelings of efficacy by class and ethnic groups

73

73

9. Ethnic group feelings of influence on state legislators . . 74

10. Ethnic group contact with state legislators 74

11. Reasons for not contacting a state legislator by ethnic groups

12. Ethnic group identification with other groups

75

76

13. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of manufacturers on the state legislature

14. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of voters on the state legislature

78

78

15. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of minorities on the state legislature 79

16. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of churches on the state legislature 81

17. Environmental problems as perceived by ethnic groups .... 82 vii

viii

LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table

18. Environmental values as perceived by ethnic groups

Page

86

19. Ethnic group attitudes toward land planning 88

20. Ethnic group attitudes toward governmental spending .... 90

21. Self-identification of CNF Planning Forum participants ... 94

22. Overlapping publics based on self-identification by participants at CNF Planning Forums 96

99 23. Ethnic group participation in political activities

24. Voting by ethnic groups 101

25. Observation of city council meetings on television by ethnic group 101

102 26. Attendance at public meetings by ethnic group

27. Contacting elected officials or the public in order to express an opinion by ethnic group

28. Coronado National Forest Planning Forums; location and attendance

29. Uses of the CNF mentioned by the public at more than six Planning Forums

104

106

Ill

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Arnstein ladder of participation

2. Map of Coronado National Forest

3. CNF planning process diagram

Page

19

26

29

4. Letter sent inviting people to be on the CNF mailing list . 47

5. Response card for being placed on the CNF mailing list ... 48

6. Agenda, CNF Land Management Planning Forimis 57

7. Minority organizations mailed a letter and response card . . 65

8. Results of content analysis of public comment regarding uses of the Coronado National Forest 108

9. Results of content analysis of public comment regarding an ideal future for the Coronado National Forest 112

10. Results of content analysis of public comment regarding a realistic future for the Coronado National Forest . . . 114

11. Results of content analysis of public coiranent by topic only of issues on the Coronado National Forest 117

12. First list of issues adopted for the CNF land management plan and other plans

13. Revised list of issues adopted for the CNF land management plan and other plans

118

122 ix

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study has been an investigation of citizen participation in USDA Forest Service land management planning for the

Coronado National Forest (CNF) in southeastern Arizona. Using an inter­ disciplinary approach, this research combined concepts from the fields of sociology, political science, natural resource planning and manage­ ment to develop methods for obtaining citizen input, promoting ethnic minority participation, and following Forest Service use of public com­ ment in the planning process. Data from existing questionnaires and a short questionnaire developed specifically for planning forums were used to investigate forms of participation, determine which publics partici­ pate and ascertain levels of interest in natural resource planning.

Participation on the CNF core planning team provided observations on use of the publics' input.

Despite a 20 percent Mexican-American population surrounding the

CNF, there was essentially no ethnic minority participation in planning forums designed to gather public issues. Data support the thesis that minorities did not participate because they did not generally think that natural resource questions were important and did not support land planning. Ethnic minorities will come to meetings when they are direct­ ly affected, despite a low sense of efficacy. Ethnic minorities had equal access to information about planning forums; however, very few were on the mailing list because they did not respond to a letter

X

xi inviting them to be on the CNF mailing and generally did not answer requests for public comment.

The Forest Service used the public comments received as the basis for writing issue statements which set the parameters for inte­ grating land and resource planning. Results were reported back to the public for review and issue statements were subsequently revised as a result of citizen and other agency comment.

Citizen participation is one way to overcome skepticism of the

Forest Service resource management performed in the name of the public interest. Different styles of decision-making imply different roles for citizen participation. Elections are decided by voting and legislative votes are influenced by lobbying. In a bureaucracy, incremental decision­ making suggests citizen participation in order to map the political ter­ rain, satisficing encourages interest group negotiation, and the synoptic approach wants facts from the publics. To count votes when decisions are being made to satisfice adds irrelevant data that frustrates both decision-maker and public. Comprehensive and useful public comment can be obtained from a structured process that is appropriate to the decision­ making style the agency is using. Citizen views are part of the decision, but so also are economics, legal requirements, and resource constraints.

Only in elections do a majority of citizens who vote, win. Bureaucratic decisions are not so neat in terms of popular will. But that is inherent in a government run by three branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial, in a complex society.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) initiated a new planning effort for the USDA Forest Service. As an amendment to the 1974 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning

Act (RPA) which provided for long range renewable resource planning,

NFMA required compiling a "comprehensive assessment of present and antic­ ipated. uses, demand for and supply of renewable resources . . . through analysis of environmental and economic impacts., coordination of multiple use and sustained yield opportunities and public participation in the development of the program" (88 Stat. 476 Section 2(3)). Public partici­ pation was to be a significant, integral part of the renewable resource planning process. In 1978, the USDA Forest Service initiated a program inviting 10 National Forests to test different planning approaches. The

"Lead Forests" as they were called were designated in different regions of the country in order to maximize the experience in planning for dif­ ferent resource capabilities, and differences in the surrounding socialpolitical and cultural environments.

The Coronado National Forest, designated as a Lead Forest in the southwestern United States covers southeastern Arizona and a small part of southwestern New Mexico. This geographic area contains four major cultural groups; Anglos (65%), Mexican-Americans (27%), Indians (4%),

1

2

Blacks (3%), and others (1^3• (See Table 1.) The others contains a small population of Asian orientals.

Since public participation was to be an integral part of the

Coronado National Forest (CNF) land management process, and since its socio-environment was multicultural, the problem for the Forest was to obtain public participation from all -ultural groups. This required development of methods that would provide public input data that was useful to the Forest Service in the CNF planning process. Previous efforts elsewhere at public involvement had yielded very little minority participation.

1.1. Purpose

The purposes of this study have been an investigation of citizen participation in land management planning. This included the develop­ ment of methods for obtaining citizen input, the promotion of minority participation, and following the Forest Service use of public input in the planning process.

1.2. Objectives

The objectives of this study have been;

1. to develop methods of citizen participation to promote general and minority participation,

2. to generate public input data for CNF planning process,

3. to verify CNF use of public input for establishing parameters for land management planning.

3

Table 1. 1977 populations by ethnic status in Arizona counties surrounding the Coronado National Forest.

Source: Estimate by Arizona Department of Economic Security as reported in the Regional Description of the Social, Eco­ nomic and Political Aspects of the Coronado National Forest,

1979.

County Total Anglo

Number in Thousands

Cochise 75.4

Graham

Greenlee

Pima

47.2

12.9 20.2

11.0 5.3

454.6

315.5

Pinal

Santa Cruz

Total

88.3

17.9

43.0

3.8

677.4 427.7

Hispanic

25,1

4.8

5.5

107.7

32.4

13.9

189.4

Indian Black Other

0.2

1.8

0.1

13.6

8.3

0

24.0

2.2

0.4

0

13.2

4.0

0.1

19.9

0.7

0.3

0.1

0.5

0.7

0.1

6.4

Percentage Distribution

Cochise

100.0 62.6

Graham

100.0 63.9

Greenlee 100.0

Pima 100.0

100.0

Pinal

Santa Cruz

100.0

48.2

69.4

48.7

21.4

33.3

23.9

50.0

23.7

36.7

77.5

0.3

8.8

0.9

3.0

9.4

0

2.9

2.0

0

2.9

4.5

0.5

0.9

1.5

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.5

1.5. Approaches

An interdisciplinary approach has been used in this research combining concepts from the fields of sociology, political science, natural resource planning and management, for the purpose of pursuing questions regarding 1) identifying the form of participation., 2) deter­ mining which publics participated, and 3) ascertaining how information generated was used during the planning process. Existing questionnaire data from a Legislative study done by The University of Arizona Insti­ tute of Government and City of Tucson Community Attitudes studies pro­ vided state and local information for interpretive analysis. A short questionnaire developed by this researcher specifically for CNF Plan­ ing Forums was administered to the citizen participants and analyzed.

Design and implementation of the actual public participation process by this researcher for the CNF provided the opportunity to thest assumptions and collect results. Participation in the Coronado National Forest interdisciplinary planning team provided observations on the use of the public input and on Forest Service staff attitudes regarding public concerns.

1.4. Scope

The scope of this study has been restricted to the Coronado

National Forest and its surrounding political and social environment.

Some of the survey data used were drawn from all of Arizona although the CNF covers only about one-third of the state. Other data came directly from the city of Tucson, the major city in southeastern Arizona which contains about two-thirds of the population of the CNF area.

5

Within the NFMA planning process, the scope of this research has been the first step, gathering the public issues, that were used in setting the parameters for the planning process. This study has not encompassed public comment on the choice of a preferred plan nor examined public positions regarding tradeoffs required for an acceptable plan.

1.5. Organization

This research paper is structured into six chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the history of citizen participation in natural resource agencies as required by law. Chapter 3 contains six assumptions made about citizen participation and subsequently tested in the process of this research. Descriptions of methods used to test the six assumptions are presented in Chapter 4; results of these tests are contained in

Chapter 5. Conclusions and implications for further efforts at public involvement in Forest Service NFMA planning are discussed in Chapter 6.

1.6. Author Comment

The author has long been a participant in and an advocate for improving citizen participation. Americans are taught that our govern­ ment is participatory; it belongs to us and we have rights and responsi­ bilities as citizens. There are many ways to exetcise rights and responsibilities, and one of them is to influence natural resource policy­ making. The citizen's right is to be heard by the agency and responded to fairly. The citizens' responsibility is to take the time and effort

(including reading and preparation) to comment in a knowledgeable fashion and to insure that the agency is responsive. An agency's right is to be

allowed to do its job according to applicable laws, and its repons bility is to treat all interests equally and fairly.

CHAPTER 2

HISTORY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

IN NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES

There has been a history o£ involving citizens in natural resource agency decision-making. NFMA was not the first law to suggest involving citizens in an organized fashion; but by mentioning only public involvement and not the technique by which citizens were to be involved, the law became part of a changing pattern. Initially there were only advisory committees, which co-opted the public. The Adminis­ dures for the attentive publics. Currently, public involvement is formally mentioned; however, the agency must be responsible for solicit­ ing those interested or those who should be interested and encouraging their participation. Actually, the earlier methods have not been abandoned, and all three approaches are in use at this time. Each of these phases is discussed in order: advisory committees, APA approach, public involvement.

Whatever the method of citizen participation, there have been differences in the amount of power the agency has shared with the public.

The Amstein ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969, p. 218) is a model of that shared power. For it is not just the method (e.g., advisory committee, workshop) that determines a citizen's ability to influence agency policy, but the amount of attention the agency must or decides to

7

8 give to that citizen input (Frear, 1973, p. 651). The levels of shared power are described in §2.4, Power Sharing Hierarchy.

2.1. Advisory Boards

Advisory boards were set up early in the history o£ natural resource agencies. The Taylor Grazing Act o£ June, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269) set up advisory boards to the Grazing Service, predecessor to the Bureau of Land Management. The National Park System Advisory Baord was autho­ rized in August, 1935 (49 Stat. 666). Forest Service grazing permittees were permitted in 1950 to petition to form local advisory boards (64

Stat. 85). The National Park Advisory Board was appointed by the Secre­ tary of the Interior, and the grazing boards were elected by the per­ mittees. The boards were to advise the Secretary on local or national policy. If the Secretary of Agriculture or his duly authorized repre­ sentative overruled, disregarded, or modified any Forest Service advisory board recommendations, he had to furnish in writing to the local boards his reasons for such action. Local advisory boards also were to comment on national regulations and policy changes; and if a local boards' recommendation was not followed, the Secretary had to furnish written reason to that local board.

Use of advisory committees is a recognition of the "rules of the game" in the United Stated prescribing that individuals and groups likely to be affected should be consulted before governmental action is taken

(Truman, 1963, p. 457). This is a prerequisite to an action being seen as fair. IVhich groups are appointed to an advisory committee is probably

9 administrators. Agencies use groups in an advisory committee to facili­ tate acceptance of an agency's actions by the group represented. Advi­ sory committee membership is a granting of influence and a means of identifying probable lines of opposition with opportunities to minimize hostility by early modification of the program. Agencies may also be inducing groups to run interference for an agency both in the legislature and with the remainder of the public (Truman, 1963, p. 458). In short, the device is one for keeping administration out of politics by forma­ lizing access and by restricting areas of controversy. A group sitting on an advisory committee may gain prestige and propaganda advantages.

Agencies thus end up developing a set of relationships among their own staff, within the executive branch, with the legislature, and with organized interest groups.

Advisory committee abuses of power mounted. No one knew exactly how many advisory committees there were. A report, "Tlie Effectiveness of Federal Advisory Committees," was prepared by the House of Representa­ tives Committee on Government Operations in 1970. Hearings were held, but no legislation was passed by the 91st Congress. The 92nd Congress tried again. During hearings on a bill to standardize advisory commit­ tees, Congressman John S. Managan said:

The system of advisory committees that has grown up over the years might well be described as a Sth arm of government; exist­ ing alongside the executive, legislative, judicial and regulatory arms. There is a growing awareness that an invitation to advise can be subtle steps conferring the power to regulate and legislate.

We use committees, but how many? Many times advisory committees are used advantageously and effectively. At times they are used as whipping boys. Some are created to influence government, others are abused or misused. Their extensive use and continued creation by statute, executive order, or other means warrants an

10 overall Federal policy and guidelines. Yet

none

currently exists that is adequate with regard to their use, support or management.

(Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives,

1971, p. 1).

Senator Lee Metcalf (Montana) described the problems:

The legislative branch delegates authority to the executive branch which then turns to a new branch of government, the industry advisory committee. And they get together in secret and push what they want through the commissions or agencies bypassing the Congress and the public which usually does not know what is going on. That is why it is fundamental that advisory committees be diversified and opened to public partic­ ipation and scrutiny. (Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, 1971, pp. 15-16).

In defense of advisory committees. Senator William Roth (Delaware) said:

I believe advisory committees are a useful and necessary part of representative government. They not only involve private individuals in the decision-making process of their government, but they bring to government the knowledge and experience of experts in specialized fields which would not otherwise be available. (Committee on Government Operations,

House of Representatives, 1971, p. 55).

The arguments for establishing a system to govern creation and operation of advisory committees in the executive branch of the federal government prevailed, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat, 770) was passed in October, 1972. Congress declared that the numerous committees, boards, and commissions established to advise officers and agencies of the federal government were "frequently useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas and diverse opinions." Congress laid out some principles to be followed: new advisory committees should be estab­ lished only when they are determined to be essential, advisory committees should be terminated when they are no longer carrying out the purposes for which they were established, and standards and uniform procedures should govern the establishment, operation, and administration of advisory

committees. Congress asked to be kept informed on the number, purpose, membership, activities, and costs of such committees. Congress made it very clear that the function of advisory committees was to be advisory only and that all matters under a committee's consideration should be determined from the law by the agency involved. Laws passed subsequent to the Federal Advisory Committee Act list the topics on which an advi­ sory committee may give advice. Membership on advisory committees was to be fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and func­ tions to be performed. The advisory committee's advice was to the result of independent judgment and not a result of inappropriate influ­ ence by the appointing body or any special interest.

To keep track of all advisory committees, a committee management secretariat was established in the Office of Management and Budget. To establish an advisory committee, a charter must be filed with the head of the agency to whom any advisory committee reports and with the appro­ priate standing committee of the Senate and House. Advisory committee meetings were opened to the public, and meeting times were published in the Federal Register. Interested persons could appear before or file statements v/ith any advisory committee. Detailed minutes were to be kept of each advisory committee meeting; and minutes, reports, drafts, agendas, etc., were made available for public inspection. Advisory committees were to be chaired by a designated governmental official; no committee could meet in the absence of that officical and without an approved agenda. Committees were established for two years and could be renewed for another two years by again filing a charter. The amount of regulation set up by this law has slowed down the use of advisory

committees at the local level. According to local officials, it was just too much of an effort.

12

2.2. Administrative Procedures Act

Another way for publics to be involved in agency decision-making was the rule-making procedure instituted by the Administrative Procedures making rules to publish them in the Federal Register. After the rules were published, the public could comment on the new rules and regulations either in writing or at a public hearing. The agency had to consider the comments before finally adopting the regulations. Along with this act, the Freedom of Information Act (72 Stat. 574; August 12, 1968) also pro­ vided citizen access to federal bureaucratic decision-making. The Free­ dom of Information Act required governmental agencies upon request to provide to the public papers, opinions, records, policy statements, and staff manuals. This allowed interested citizens to read further about agency policy. Clearly, with these laws, the initiative for citizen involvement rested with the public. The public had to read the Federal

Register, know what materials to ask for, and try to change rules and regulations very late in the policy development process. Practically, it meant that legal counsel was needed in order to understand the sub­ stance of the regulations and procedures.

The concept of the attentive public was carried forward in the

Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 890). Citizen participation followed generally the APA procedure but with some modification. Public notice of a proposal for wilderness classification was to be made in the Federal

Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the area, and in other ways the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture deemed appropriate.

A public hearing or hearings at a location or locations convenient to the area affected were to be held. The hearings were to be publicized in the Federal Register, in a newspaper, and in other ways. To coordi­ nate with local governments at least 30 days before the date of a hear­ ing, the governor of each state and the governing board of each county, as well as other federal agencies, were to be notified.

Following the APA model, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852), which included provision for an environ­ mental assessment to be made as part of the decision-making process of any significant federal action, allowed for citizen involvement. The

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were to be made available for public comment in writing or at a hearing. For the citizen, it was an open process in which anyone who cared about an area or a project could get involved. All an individual had to do was to get an EIS, read it, and investigate whether the document covered all environmental aspects of the problem. This was a different arena from the carefully selected advisory committees which had been so popular with federal agencies and certain publics. To get on an advisory committee, a person had to be known to the agency. The agency was more inclined to appoint people who were cooperative and friendly rather than those who raised troublesome questions. On the other hand, anyone who could find out about it, could get involved in the NEPA process. public.

But these efforts were not enough for some members of the

14

2.5. Maximum Feasible Participation

In the early sixties, as civil rights battles were being fought.

President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was being discussed and enacted.

The Economic Opportunities Act (EOA) o£ 1964 (78 Stat. 508) carried a paragraph which said there should be "maximum feasible participation" among the affected poor in its community action proposals. The Demon­ stration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act (1966) (80 Stat. 1255) insisted that HUD create "widespread participation" among the people affected by the program grants. OEO and HUD departed substantially from the traditional approach to participation. Agencies took this to mean that they had to encourage involvement among the target population by going to them and educating them in appropriate methods for participa­ tion. An important principle had been established. There was a recog­ nition of the vested interests and rights of people who were directly affected by public programs. Now public participation was more of a right than a privilege (Rosenbaum, 1978, p. 83).

Building on the lessons learned in OEO and Model Cities, new efforts were made to involve the public. Concepts of affirmative agency responsibility were applied to encourage public involvement in many stages of policy planning using many different techniques. The imple­ mentation of new involvement strategies was largely unspecified by law; consequently, agencies were given considerable discretion (Rosenbaum,

1978, p. 83). There was provision for official recognition of private decisions reached in a process sketchily specified in the statute. This resulted from the pluralist ideas about interaction between countervail­ ing groups leading to establishing the public interest by making everyone

15 part of the policymaking family. These interest groups were then also part of the administration of the policy, leading to problems of rational and responsible administration because the principles of representation are antithetical to the principles of administration (Lowi, 1969, p.

233). Representatives are responsive to their constituencies, and administrators are responsible to the policies set forth. Interest group pluralism, Lowi states, corrupts democratic government because it confuses the public's expectations about democratic institutions (which are based on law) by promoting popular decision-making. There is then a redistribution of power, Lowi maintains, by the maxim of each according to his claim.

Despite theoretical problems that Lowi points out. Congress con­ tinued the policy of including public involvement in planning efforts.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972

(86 Stat. 816), Section 101(e) states: "Public participation in the development, revision, enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan or program established by the Administrator, or any

State under this act, shall be provided for, encouraged and assisted by the Administrator and the states. ..." "Assisted" is new language,

EPA interpreted "assisted" to mean going out and teaching people about citizen participation, water pollution, and what remedies exist. This is a change from the APA policy of waiting for the public to read the

Federal Register and comment.

Natural resource agencies were under scrutiny especially with regard to planning and changing to meet changing public demands. In

1974 the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA)

(88 Stat. 476) was passed in an effort to force the Forest Service to

16 get involved in long-range planning. RPA required public participation only to the extent that submitting long range plans to Congress is involving the public. The NFMA passed in 1976 as an amendment to RPA contained reference to public involvement 11 times and meant partici­ pation at the local level. There were two bills--Randolph Bill and

Humphrey Bill—competing for approval of their policy for national forest management. Debate surfaced many differences in the two approaches to forest management including public involvement. The Randolph bill would have made available for public comment, prior to implementation, plans and the data base supporting decisions. The Humphrey bill provided the public an opportunity to participate in the formulation and revision of comprehensive land management plans developed in accordance with the

NEPA process. The public was to be actively involved from the beginning of the process rather than just commenting at the end.

Natural resource agencies therefore had three types of citizen participation going on: advisory boards, APA rule-making procedures, and public involvement in policy formation. The advisory boards con­ tinued to be controversial since members are selected by the agency or a specified constituency such as grazing permittees. Congress, in debating the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (90 Stat. 2743) should continue and whether to add a multiple-use board to advise the

BLM. Curt Burkland, ELM Director, proposed broad-based, three-level advisory boards—one at the district, one at the state, and one at the national level (Hearing, 1975, p. 6). During the debate on the FLPMA,

17 the environmental groups overall expressed wariness of advisory boards.

Charles Clausen of the Sierra Club said;

We also oppose the section of Grazing District Advisory-

Boards, section 212, which exempts the district advisory boards from section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

This provision would ensure that these boards continue to be pressure lobbies for solely the livestock industry concerns.

We feel BLM has recently made significant progress in reform­ ing these boards by better balancing the various public inter­ ests. If district boards are to continue to exist, they must reflect a balance of all the interests in the public lands from the local, regional, and national level. (Hearing,

1975, p. 79).

D. G. Freed of the American National Cattlemen's Association disagreed:

The grazing district advisory boards perform a special­ ized function. We do not oppose the creation of multiple use advisory boards to advise the secretary generally on the management of the public lands. However, we believe that the allocation of forage is a specialized function and that the advice the Secretary and District Manager receive in respect to that function ought to come from those who possess the expertise necessary to properly advise those officials on forage allocation. (Hearing, 1975, p. 50).

The Subcommittee on Public Lands wrote several versions of the bill making boards permissive and adding public participation in com­ menting on agency standards, and criteria for the preparation and execu­ tion of plans, programs, and planning and management of the national resource lands. Kenneth Rustad, Direction of the National Association of Counties, supported the section that "provides the BLM will establish procedures for public involvement and participation in the land use planning process. This is a fundamental requirement for successful land use planning whether it be at the national, regional, or local level"

(Hearing, 1975, p. 395). George Alderson, Direction of the Wilderness

Society, reiterated the group's belief in public participation in plan­ ning; "It is at the actual planning stage that local public expertise

18 is most effective in our experience. The people know these lands. They use them in various ways, and they can bring on-the-ground knowledge to bear on BlM's land-use plans" (Hearing, 1975, p. 395). Mr. Alderson also recommended deletion of the grazing advisory board. The final version of FLPMA required the Secretaries of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Interior (BLM) to establish local advisory boards to advise on the development of allotment management plans (Section 403) and utilization of range-betterment funds. The boards would consist of livestock repre­ sentatives. Provisions for the boards expires December 31, 1985, and provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act apply. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized also to establish Advisory Councils planning was to proceed with public involvement and coordination with state and local government planning activities. Public participation was added as a requirement for selling of BLM lands to state and local governments for recreation and public purposes.

2.4. Power Sharing Hierarchy

Laws have directed agencies to use citizen participation, but its exact role—whether advisory, cooperative, or veto-exercising—is undecided. Sherry Arnstein (1969, p. 217) has described a hierarchy of power sharing between the public and an agency. Using a ladder that has eight steps with three main divisions of power--degree of citizen power, degree of tokenism, and nonparticipation--Arnstein built a concept

(Figure 1).

19

tn

i-H o

>

<D

5

4

7

6

3

2 , citizen control delegated power partnership placation consultation informing citizens therapymanipulation

> Degree of citizen power

>

> Degree of tokenism

Degree of

Figure 1. Arnstein ladder of participation.

Source: Arnstein, 1969, p. 218.

20

Under degree of citizen power, Amstein starts at the top (level

8) with citizen control. However, she notes that, since Americans live in a republic where power of the citizens is delegated to elected offi­ cials, no one in the nation has absolute control. Level 7 is delegated power. This has been tried in some neighborhoods with zoning; but usu­ ally elected officials and authorized agencies are very reluctant to give up power to citizens, especially since there is no way to hold citizens accountable for their decisions. At this level, Amstein sees people demanding the degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial apsects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which "outsiders" may change them. At this level, the ladder has been scaled to the point where citizens hold significant power and assure accountability of the program to them.

Level 6 is called partnership. At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and powerholders. They agree to share planning and decision-making responsi­ bilities through such structures as joint policy boards and planning committees, with mechanisms for resolving impasses. This is where many planners feel that they want to work. However, in reality, most planners do not have sufficient authority themselves to give this much power to citizens.

The degree of tokenism includes levels 5 through 3. At level 5, citizens still have some degree of influence though tokenism is apparent.

This level is called placation. The degree to which citizens are actu­ ally placated, of course, depends largely on two factors: (1) the

21 quality o£ technical assistance citizens have in articulating their priorities and (2) the extent to which the community has been organized to press for these priorities. At this level, people are, by and large, still being planned for. Consultation, level 4, or inviting citizen opinion, can be a legitimate step toward full participation. But if consulting is not combined with other modes of participation, this rung of the ladder is misleading because it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be taken into account. The most frequent methods for consulting people consist of attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings. Level 3 is informing the citizens. This can be an important first step toward legitimate citizen participation; however, too frequently the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information—from officials to citizens—with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation.

Nonparticipation includes both therapy and manipulation. Level

2, labeled "therapyi" is both dishonest and arrogant. At this level, citizens are invited to participate because it is good for them. Level 1 is "manipulation." In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of "educating them or engineering their support,"

2.5. Summary

"The public bureaucracy has been a revolutionary force in Ameri­ can society in so far as it has provided a channel through which sub­ has been the case in the natural resource agencies vtfhich provided a

22 channel for the emergence of environmental groups in the late 1960s and

70s. The bureaucracy, once a repository of elites, appointed using the spoils system, was reformed along the ideas of the progressive and popu­ list movement, putting an end to the previous practices. There has been a long emphasis on technical and nonpartisan competence in government which lead to executive control and administrative tidiness. The Forest

Service, for example, has long been held up as an example of professional nonpolitical service. But the professional bureaucracy was remote from the people it served, and citizens felt cut off. The increasingly com­ plex bureaucracy was no longer influenced by a citizen vote for or against a legislator. By and large, bureaucratic decisions were not being influenced in the electoral process.

Citizen participation has evolved over time. Citizen influence was felt in the electoral process and that continues to a limited extent today. Selected citizens were invited onto advisory boards, which ranged from ineffectual to virtual running of the agency. Groups were given the opportunity to comment at the end of the process before rules were implemented; now they are invited into the beginning of the policyforming process and to work alongside the agency throughout the process.

Earlier, citizens were on their own about getting involved] now the agencies are out looking for them and asking them to help.

There is still disagreement in federal agencies over what "help" means. Is it advice to be used or rejected at a whim, or input which must be responded to just as economic and biological feasibility data?

Various solutions to this disagreement are only now beginning to emerge.

CHAPTER 3

ASSUMPTIONS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING

PROCESS FOR THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST

Citizen participation is one aspect of democratic governmer.c.

It is concerned with the role of citizens influencing public policy which is being formulated in the name of the "public interest." Voting for representatives in government and lobbying are well-known procedures and public access to the political process is widely discussed. The move of public policy formation to the executive branch, specifically to the

Forest Service undertaking local land management planning, has created pressures for public access where the procedure is less well defined and understood. This chapter examines a definition of citizen participation,

CNF planning, and assumptions used to develop and implement a public participation process for the CNF NFMA planning system.

3.1. Citizen Participation

Citizen participation is a multi-faceted concept which, broadly defined, refers to activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing governmental action or the.selection of governmental personnel. These include voting, lobbying, campaigning, advising, writing letters to governmental officials, attending public meetings and hearings, and so forth. An examination of the roots of the word "citizen," which are a combination of city and inhabitant, suggests

23

24 legal inhabitant or resident of a political unit. Rights and responsi­ bilities of citizenship are well spelled out in law. Participation comes from "part" and "to take" which, put together, means "to take part," communicating a sense of working together in shares. Public participa­ tion is not synonymous with citizen participation because it refers to all people in a "public" whether they are citizens or not. Public par­ ticipation can also be interpreted to include taking part in any public institution—not just government. Involvement comes from "to wrap in something, to roll" and implies that one thing is encumbered or controlled by another. Citizen involvement (or public involvement) then is a varia­ tion of citizen participation which is characterized by governmental control of the process of participation.

Stuart Langdon (1976, p. 21) divides citizen participation into four types:

1. Citizen action, protest, lobbying, public advocacy--activities initiated and controlled by citizens or citizen groups.

2. Citizen involvement—activities initiated and controlled by government to improve and/or gain support for decisions, plans or services which included public hearings, advisory groups and surveys. (Public involvement is a variation emphasizing publics, whether citizen or not.)

3. Electoral participation--activities associated with voting, campaigning, and political parties.

4. Obligatory participation, such as paying taxes and serving on a jury.

25

Each type of citizen participation has its own purpose, traditions, style, language, and following. Because purposes are so different, one person can mean one thing by saying citizen participation and another person will understand something very different. Persons familiar with taking part in one type of participation process may be very sus­ picious of other types. Use of all these different terms with different connotations has led to different expectations and, consequently, confu­ sion for both public and agency regarding purpose and result. Most of the processes discussed herein are in the group of "public involvement" since they are initiated by government and acknowledge there are many publics.

3.2. CNF Planning

The U.S. Forest Service is a member of the Department of Agri­ culture of the executive branch of the United States government. There are nine regional offices headed by a Regional Forester. The Coronado

National Forest (CNF) is in Region 3, comprised of the national forests in Arizona and New Mexico with the regional office in Albuquerque. The

Forest Supervisor is the responsible forest official for the 1.3 million acres of forest land found on twelve mountain ranges in Arizona and New

Mexico which comprise the CNF.

The Coronado National Forest is divided into five districts with a District Ranger heading each district located across southeastern Ari­ zona, The Supervisor's office (SO) is located in Tucson. (See Figure 2.)

The Forest Supervisor has staff officers to assist him in managing the

Forest, and the District Rangers also have staff officers to assist them.

Tucsoni

Green

Valley

Arivaca*

W

ata-^ jonia

Nogales

Figure 2. Map of Coronado National Forest.

Mexico

Willco

Coronado National

Forest

Miles

.Ptortal

N) o\

27

The staff officers are responsible to their line officer, i.e.. District

Ranger or Forest Supervisor, but they are also guided by their respec­ tive counterparts at the office above them. In other words, the district range conservationist is responsible to the District Ranger, but is guided by the SO range staff officer. The basic resources of the forest are recreation, forage, vvildlife, wilderness, watershed, and timber.

Planning is headed by Planning and Information staff officer at the SO. There are no positions at the district offices responsible only for planning, but recreation and lands district officers often handle planning along with their other duties. At the SO, the Planning Officer had a group of one planner, two assistant planners, and part-time citizen participation specialist and a part-time economist.

With the passage of the Renewable Resources Planning Act in 1974 and the amendments in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, inte­ grated Forest Land Management planning became a requirement for all

National Forests. Since this was a new idea, to integrate national objectives and local land capability and suitability to produce the out­ puts called for, ten Lead Forests were chosen to test the proposed regu­ lations for planning and to experiment with different approaches using the ideas in the laws. One Forest was chosen from each region.

The integrated land management planning was to be accomplished by an interdisciplinary group. The planning group's job was to facili­ tate the interdisciplinary (ID) team, composed of specialists from the district offices and the SO. For certain tasks, technical work groups were created using ID team members. Technical work groups studying recreation and lands, timber and fire wildlife, and range were composed

28 of appropriate specialists from district offices and SO.(a grouping of interests peculiar to the CNF since it has no timber sales other than firewood, and does have significant interest in wildlife).

Integrated Forest land management planning, as interpreted by the Regional Office, is to be issue driven. NFMA called for early and frequent citizen participation. The public issues as well as management concerns are to direct what topics will be covered in the planning pro­ cess. Other federal and state agencies, local and county governments, and Indian tribes are also to be consulted regarding shared problems that can be solved by land management planning.

Initially, the Lead Forest concept allowed Forests to experiment with different planning processes and to adapt to local situations.

Currently, there is an effort to standardize the approach to planning on a nation-wide basis. This is the usual response of a bureaucracy, to routinize decision-making so that it is the same everywhere. In reality, each Forest has different biological environment; swamps, des­ erts, coastal redwoods, mixed conifer forests; and different surrounding political and social environments; urban, rural, mountain communities and small towns including a different interaction between Forest and commun­ ity. The Coronado's approach to planning was a reflection of their desert environment, fragmented lands, and demographic-economic charac­ teristics (Table 1, p. 3).

The planning process used by the CNF is diagrammed in Figure 3.

This process has been different from the often sketched flow chart show­ ing the order in which steps are to be accomplished. CNF planning has identified four simultaneous tasks moving through six main phases of the

ONGOING

TASKS information gathering

Getting

Organized

Issue

Identification

P H A S E S

Issue

Categories

Alternative

Develop.

Plan

Develop.

Imple­ mentation decision making participation monitoring time

Figure 3. CNF planning process diagram.

NJ

ID

process. These six phases are mentioned first and include: (1) prepa­ ration for planning process, (2) identifying and collecting issues,

(3) forming issue strategies or devising ways to solve the issues and assessing CNF supply capabilities, [4) developing alternatives which consist of putting together strategies to meet different kinds of futures, (5) selecting the preferred alternative which becomes the plan, and (6) implementing the plan by developing and budgeting for programs and projects called for in the plan. The four simultaneous tasks are

(1) gathering information, e.g., about issues, CNF supply capability, response to selected issues, (2) decisionmaking, e.g., decisions about which issues to deal with, which solutions are feasible, which alterna­ tives to choose, (3) participation, e.g., public and other federal, state, local governments and agencies, and (4) monitoring, e.g., check­ ing to see if the process is progressing as planned and keeping track of changes in demands. This process happens over a time period charted at the bottom of the process diagram.

Public involvement is required by law (NFMA) in the planning process. And that is reason enough for Forest Service to invest time and money in a process; however, other good reasons exist (Fairfax, 1974, pp. 8-15). Citizen participation can also generate valuable information for an agency, of public values, opinions, and other knowledge. Many citizens share generously with the Forest Service their specialized knowledge of ornithology, geology, archaeology. Often citizens will know the land in their local Forest in addition to its history, and can share this expertise with Forest Service personnel who have not lived as long in the area. Citizens can sometimes find errors in documents and

correct them before action is taken. By working with the public, the agency can educate as to its point of view and build support for a plan or program.

Citizens have asked for increased participation in decision­ making, citing many reasons for the request. Some of the reasons are that local people want to have influence on the decisions which will affect them. Local people claim to know the land best and thus prevent costly errors due to faulty information and guidance. There is also articulated an oversight function: the need to see that the agency is following its own laws and regulations.

The CNF developed a public involvement program as part of the

NFMA planning process. The goal for the Coronado National Forest public involvement plan was to generate issues and concerns from as many diverse publics as possible. The task then was to get publics to participate and share their time and expertise in responding with comments that were pertient to land management planning. "The planning process must involve the broadest possible spectrum of participation by recognizable interests and by accepted disciplines before a decision is made" (Schneider, 1975,

3.3. Assumptions

In developing the public involvement program, six assumptions were made. Each assumption is listed as a heading and the reasons for the assumption discussed below it.

32

3.3.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

Who Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

Through Interest Groups

Verba and Nie's (1972) study of participation in America indi­ cated that people who are members o£ organizations are more likely to be active in political life than nonmembers. Public involvement in Forest

Service planning is a part of political life since it is involved in setting public policy for a natural resource agency. Membership in a group affords the opportunity to be active, gain experience and training, and provides for political stimulus through discussion. Studies on public participation in water quality planning also found membership in organizations significantly infouenced the extent to which people were inclined to participate (Czarnecki and Kamieniecki, 1979, p. 13).

"Interest groups refers to any group that on the basis of one or more shared attitudes make certain claims upon other groups in society for establishment, maintenance, and enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes" (Tiaiman, 1963, p. 33). Inter­ est groups and private associations play a major role in American politi­ cal life. They seek access to those in power, elected or appointed, in order to influence public policy formation in conformation with the groups' shared attitudes. Each group may well be a political minority, but it competes with other interest groups to form coalitions which will make them a majority. Believers in the pluralist theory of governing state that the best policy decisions are made through discussions and competition between group idealogies. The competition between the pre­ ferences of the private associations tends toward an equilibrium which pluralists equate with the public interest. Groups can be seen as the

medium o£ public interest and therefore also as a source o£ stability in politics. Since public policy decisions are made in the name of the public interest, groups and the people who comprise them, are a part of the policy process.

Participation is unequally distributed throughout society because qualities that lead some to choose to participate--motivation, skill resources—are not equally distributed (Verba and Nie, 1972, p.

355). A standard socioeconomic model of politicization works in America resulting in overrepresentation of upper-status groups with a general set of civic orientations. This model would predict lower rates of mem­ bership for minorities since their members have, on the average, less education and less statusful occupations. Nationally conducted studies such as that by Steggart (1975) (Table 2) support the socioeconomic model, but the differences in membership rates between middle and lower class respondents were sligh and within each class Blacks and Whites did not differ. Blacks in the upper class had a higher degree of membership.

Czarnecki and Kamieniecki (1979, p. 12) duplicated Verba and

Nie's approach in order to explain public involvement in water quality planning. They postulated a socioeconomic model to explain people's willingness to participate in water quality policymaking. The results from the study found that other factors, such as beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions relating to water quality were more important than socio­ economic and demographic variables in predicting willingness to partici­ pate. Increased membership in organizations and residency in more

"bounded" communities significantly influenced the extent to which people are included to participate in water quality planning (Czarnecki

34

Table 2. Membership in organizations working on city problems.

Source: Recoded data. Urban Observatory Programs, Citizen's

Attitude Survey, 1972, as published in Steggert (1975). n = 4300.

Class % of survey % membership % nonmembership

Upper Class

White^

Black^

Middle Class

IVhite

Black

Lower Class

White

Black

Totals

16.7

2.5

43.9

14.4

15.1

7.4

100.0

24.56

40.69

12.64

13.42

8.54

9.02

14.15

3. includes people of Spanish descent. includes small number of other nonwhite groups.

75.44

59.31

87.63

91.58

91.46

90.98

85.85

and Kamieniecki, 1979, p. 13). Younger people and those of higher socio­ economic status were more likely to participate. Czarnecki and

Kamieniecki (1979, p. 15) postulated a causal flow from age and socio­ economic status through attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions relating to water quality to intent to participate in water quality policy-making.

Therefore, individuals who will participate in policy making are members in organizations and are interested in the topic being discussed.

Ethnic minority participation has been addressed by many studies

(Greeley, 1974; Steggert, 1975; Grebler, Moore, and Guzman, 1970;

Antunes and Gaitz, 1974; and Williams, Babchuk, and Johnson, 1973) and with varying and contradictory results. Some studies, such as Wright and Hyman (1958) suggest that Blacks are less likely to belong to voluntary groups than Anglos. On the other hand, several studies have reported that the rate of participation is higher for Blacks than Anglos

(May, 1950; Babchuk and Thompson, 1962; Orum, 1966; Steggert, 1975;

Olsen, 1970; and Verba and Nie, 1972). Mexican-Americans, some investi­ gators claim, seldom belong to groups (Heller, 1966; Ruble, 1966; and

Briegel, 1970) while others dispute this finding (Romano, 1968; Montiel,

1970; Alvarez, 1971; and Garcia and de la Garza, 1977). Differences between study results could be traced to the ethnic, regional, and political profile of the areas. Austin, Texas, for instance, is differ­ ent from Houston, and Los Angeles is different from Tucson. Real dif­ ferences in participation patterns may exist in one locale, but it appears that generalizations to a national scale are inappropriate. No study of formal participation of native Americans was found. Therefore, with no strong trend, the local situation must be tested.

36

If indeed participating individuals can be reached through organizations, then organization newsletters should be a channel for communication of opportunities to participate. This would be in addi­ tion to the traditional channels of newspaper, radio, television, and written invitation. Information exchange, especially in the context of the amount oi relevant information exchanged between an actor and his social environment is an important predictor of political participation

(Sallach, Babchuk, and Booth, 1972, p. 883). Written invitations are dependent on mailing lists, so generating a mailing list is a basic step in public involvement. Groups are a starting point for building a mail­ ing list since group members are more likely to participate in a public involvement process.

This assumption concerning interest groups and participation also suggests that people will participate because they feel it will make a difference. They have a feeling of efficacy due to their experiences either in directly influencing policy by contacting elected or appointed officials or in their group experiences. An individual may also think that if a group is powerful in influencing policy formation, and if an individual feels close to that group, he or she will feel powerful also.

3.3.2, Minority Participation V/ill Bring a Viewpoint Regarding Natural Resources

That Is Different from the Anglo Majority

Mexican-Americans in southern Arizona represent persons who had difference experiences in terms of the history of the area. Many retain ties across the boarder to Mexico and its world view from a cultural mix of Aztec and Spanish.

•hi

Native Americans in the area are from the Papago Nation and the

\Vhite Mountain Apaches. These two groups have different heritages. The

Papago are believed to be descendants of the Hohokam, an early desert tribue; the Apache are from a later migration from the north and were hunting groups assigned to a reservation by treaty.

Arizona was a southern state, and the Blacks have shared a heri­ tage with other Blacks in the nation.

3.3.3. All Participating Citizens

Have Different Interests and Therefore

Form Overlapping Publics

David B. Truman (1963) in The Governmental Process pointed out that an individual is normally a member of several groups, each of which makes respective claims. This overlapping group membership helps to control the selfishness and narrowness that Madison in Federalist Papers individual is wholly absorbed in any group to which he or she belongs.

Only a part of his or her attitudes is expressed through one affiliation.

It is important in this concept of overlapping publics to point out the moving stream of politics involves not only actual groups but potential groups as well (Truman, 1963, p. 159).

The more cohesion a group has, along with the factors of size, claims. The appearence of harmony in a successful group that may mislead the casual observer into treating such a group as a solid homogeneous unit. A group may approach such a state in some degree it it is to exist at all, but no group fully attains it (Truman,1963 , pp. 159-60).

38

CNF planning process were to be treated as the unit from which to seek input. The amount of overlap of individual interests would form an area of overlapping concerns where compromise could begin to be formed when it came time to build support for a plan.

3.3.4. A Structured Citizen Participation

Meeting Format and Written Response Forms

Can Produce Comprehensive Information about

Natural Resource Management

Citizen participation is a form of political activity, and

Greeley (1974) has suggested that there are enthnic differences in styles of participation. Verba and Nie (1972) state that communal activities are a Protestant form of participation. However, data from a survey in

Tucson shows that if directly affected, Mexican-Americans, Indians, and

Blacks will participate in community meetings.

There are many different techniques available for gathering public comment (USFS, 1977; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976; and

Heberlein, 1976), but basically there are two main approaches to collec­ tion; written and verbal.

For the Forest Service, obtaining written public comment is severely curtailed by the Federal Privacy Act (77 U.S.C. 3502-9) as interpreted by 0MB Circular A-40. Forest Service regulations (FSM

1626.42) require that 0MB approval be obtained for questionnaires

(FSM 1374-1384), which has never been given for a FS planning question­ naire. The only available technique for written responses is the

"Response Form" requiring a statement of Forest Service policy or con­ cern. The public is then asked to comment. There is no opportunity

to structure questions and so the public has to guess at what the Forest

Service needs to know. This process diminishes the usefulness of written responses since they are less specific and less directed, and therefore, more open to agency misinterpretation. Vague comments are harder to compare and integrate with more specific responses that can be elicited in face-to-face sessions.

The severe limitations on ivritten public involvement techniques puts even more pressure on the use of citizen gatherings for collecting input. "Gatherings" is used to include all group methods such as meet­ ings, hearings, listening sessions, talks, workshops, open houses, fish bowl planning, etc.

The goal set for this part of the public participation process was to generate issues to be used to identify the problems requiring solutions by the planning process. Some basic information also needed to be communicated, e.g., (a) the boundaries of the Coronado National

Forest, since it is sprinkled over twelve mountain ranges with large management planning. The technique that seemed most applicable to the

CNF process was a workshop with small groups. Fish bowl planning

(Mazmanian and Nienaber, 1978) was discarded as inappropriate due to geography of area and planning stage. Public hearings (Perfater, 1975;

Heberlein, 1978) were not considered since the Forest Service wanted to present agency information and to encourage all participants to speak up.

A go-see trip (Reinke and Reinke, 1973) was inappropriate since this planning process concerned the entire forest. Public meetings (Hendee,

40

Clark, and Stankey, 1976) were not used because they tend to be large, and therefore not everyone can talk.

Advisory groups can be useful for generating public comment

(Hendee et al., 1976, pp. 132-133), Under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (86 Stat. 770) they require a lot of work to organize since the members must be approved by the Secretary, a charter wr- tten, and published in the Federal Register along with meeting dates and agendas.

Representation of all interests is crucial to the balance of advice given and can be difficult to achieve. Workshops were chosen as the format because they allowed the opportunity to set parameters for public input and also contained small groups which allowed everyone a chance to talk (Hendee et al., 1976, p. 131; Wilm and Thomas, 1975; Wager and

Folkman, 1974, p. 404).

3.3.5. Forest Service Will Use Public

Comment as a Basis for Issue Statements

There exists much public skepticism regarding agency use of public input. Substantial segments of the population believe they can't get a fair share of the benefits through political institutions as they are presently arranged. Three characteristics of the system contribute to this impression: (1) there are large discrepancies between promised programs and what actually happens, (2) there are abundant opportunities for vetoes by those who oppose a change, and (3) the scale of the system is so large an individual feels hopelessly overwhelmed by the bureau­ cratic machine. Therefore, though there have been traditional ways for representativeness in the bureaucracy, they don't meet the present demands upon them (Kaufman, 1978, p. 441).

41

Agency personnel themselves ask why the public should be involved. The bureaucrat feels he or she is the expert and knows what is best. This attitude is symptomatic of neutral competency, one of the three core values found in a bureaucracy: neutral competency, executive leadership, and representativeness (Kaufman, 1956, p. 72). The rallying search for neutral competency. A dichotomy exists; legislatures using a political process set policy and bureaucracies administer laws in a routinized dehumanized logical fashion with no room for politics. Hovtfever, public policy formation is now viewed as a continuous process with administration. The interests that have worked for passage of a bill will continue to be involved in its administration. In order that an agency not be called before Congress for an oversight hearing or into court, the agency will stay informed about its constituencies' views and respond to them.

3.3.6. As Part of Ongoing Dialogue with

Its Constituency, the Forest Service Will

Provide Feedback Regarding Public Comnient

A citizen who responds to a request for public involvement either by written comments or attendance at a meeting wants to know the results of his or her efforts. These efforts include the time and thought in preparation of a comment, transportation costs, and forgoing other uses of free time. The time required to participate is not insub­ stantial. Common courtesy demands some acknowledgment by the Forest

Service of the public's effort.

42

An agency not only creates a better relationship with the public by reporting on the outcome of the planning step, but can also check on the accuracy with which the agency summarized the public input. Feedback to the public is useful for purposes of clarification, elaboration, and confirmation.

CHAPTER 4

TECHNIQUES FOR TESTING STATED ASSUMPTIONS

A number of different techniques have been used to test the stated assumptions. These techniques include: (1) structuring and implementing the

2h

hour workshops including opening remarks and train­ ing of the staff to run them; (2) building a mailing list; (3) designing and mailing response forms and compiling results; (4) designing, writing, and preparing for printing a tabloid format newspaper; and (5) analyzing segments of three questionnaires.

One of the questionnaires was commissioned by the City of Tucson in 1974 and conducted by the Arizona Institute for Research as part of the Comprehensive Planning Process (CPP). It is hereafter called the sample for the survey was taken from 14 planning districts drawn up by the city and county planning staffs. The population included in each planning district was estimated and the number of interviews per district was based on this. A minimum of 30 interviews per planning district was set, and there were three districts in this category. From a computer tape containing the numbers of all the census tracts and blocks, a random number was drawn for each district. For each selected census block, the address of the dwelling units within that block were listed. The addresses were numbered consecutively from the first to the last within

44 each district, and then the dwelling units to be selected were randomly selected using a random numbers table. Duplication was eliminated. The address of the primary dwelling unit as well as two alternatives were listed on envelopes for the interviewer to take into the field. About

2200 households were contacted and 1424 interviews completed.

Information was analyzed from a part of a major study on state legislatures in the Four Corner States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona done by the University of Arizona Institute of Government

(Ingram, McCain, and Laney, 1980]. Hereafter referred to as the Arizona

Legislative Study, it was composed of interviews with state legislators and a mailed questionnaire to Arizona voters. Questionnaires were mailed first class to selected voters in Arizona between May 14, 1975 and June

25, 1975. A reminder post card was sent to all individuals who had not returned a questionnnaire after one week, which was followed up two weeks later with a second letter and a questionnaire for those who had still not returned a completed questionnaire. If by the third week, there was still no reponse, a certified letter was sent. This process resulted in a 77.4% return rate corrected for mail returned as undeliverable, result­ ing in n = 829.

A third survey was conducted by the author at the Planning Forums hereafter called Planning Forum Survey. A 5" by 7" printed card was handed to participants as they registered at the meeting. Respondents placed the completed response form in a labeled box on the registration table. Four hundred ninety-eight cards were handed out; 380 returned for a 76% response rate.

45

Responses between ethnic groups were analyzed for statistically significant differences using the TABSTAT computer program v;hich computes a likelihood-ratio-chi-square statistic. Diferences are reported statis­

4.1. Testing of the Stated Assumptions

Each of the assumptions made in Chapter 3 was tested. An assump­ tion is stated and then followed by a description of the techniques used to test it. Results of the tests are contained in Chapter 5.

4.1.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

IVho Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

Through Interest Groups

This assumption was tested in several different ways. Interest groups were used to generate a mailing list which was used along with organization newsletters and print and electronic media to invite indi­ viduals to participate in the CNF land management public involvement process. In addition to learning about the process, in order to be able to participate, a person must feel efficacious enough to make the effort to do so.

The concept that citizens who participate belong to voluntary associations was used as the basis for generating a mailing list to reach individuals and inform them of opportunities to be involved. All groups that could be identified were invited in an effort to reach those people not necessarily involved in natural resource oriented programs.

A list was compiled from telephone books, from lists gathered by local chambers of commerce and local newspapers, a 40 member environmental council, the Council of Jewish Women, Pima County Homeowners Association

(some 50 neighborhood associations), and the Agricultural Extension

Service, A total of 1002 organizations were invited to participate.

46 was sent to all organizations compiled. A pre-addressed and franked response card (Figure 5] was enclosed with the request to provide some information and return the card to the CNF. Groups were asked if they would lend their mailing lists so organization members could be con­ tacted directly. Those organizations responding affirmatively were recontacted in order to make arrangements.

In order to increase minority participation, a special effort was made to obtain lists of minority organizations. One was provided by the CNF personnel office who used them for affirmative action notifica­ tion for hiring. Some of the organizations from the earlier mentioned search were also oriented towards Blacks, Native Americans, and Mexican-

All holders of Forest Service permits for grazing, wood-cutting, roads, electronic sites, etc., were sent letters and response cards.

They were automatically put on the mailing list whether or not they returned the response card.

All mail was sent first class so that it would be forwarded or returned as undeliverable. Those items returned were checked against telephone books for newer addresses and remailed if possible.

Another paragraph in the CNF letter of invitation to be placed on the mailing list asked organizations if they had a newsletter and would print articles on Forest Service planning. News stories about the

Planning Forums were sent to the resulting list. In order to measure

Coronado riF

301 W. Congress

Federal Building

Tucson, AI^ 85701

(6t)2) 792-6475

Douglas HD

Drawer Y

1925 A Avenue

Douglas, AS 35607

(fi02) 364-3231

Nogales RD

Box 1389

Nogales, A" 85621

(602) 287-7201

Sierra Vista RD

1231 E, Fry Blvd.

Sierra, Vista, AS 85635

(602) 458-0530 '

Safford RJD

Box 709

Safford, A7 85546

(602) 428-4150

Santa Catalina RD

2500 N. Pantano

Suite 126

Tucson, AZ 85715

(602) 296-6245

Santa

Catallna

District

Santd Catallna Unit

Rincon Wilderness Study ^^•a

National Forest.

XLES

ICIICO

Perhaps you've never been involved in helping the Forest Service plan for one of our national forests; hopefully, you have. But whichever the case, you are invited to give advice on what direction the Coronado National Forest should take in meeting its requirements for providing water, recreation, wood, grazinq, and mining opportunities along with other land uses.

If you are interested in joining with others over the next 18 months to be part of the development of a Total Forest Land Management Plan, please fill out and return the enclosed card. The plan will be the policy plan that will guide management and development of the Forest. Decisions developed for the Santa catalina Unit, the Rincon Wilderness Study Area, the Huachuca Unit and RARE II will be woven into a Total Forest Plan., There will be workshops, a newsletter, working groups and public meetings. We need your suggestions and ideas.

We, on the Coronado, look forward to receiving your response. We'd appreciate it by mid-Mcirph. It's your Forest, Tcike a role in its future.

Forest Supervisor

CORONADO NcUionai

Figure 4. Letter sent inviting people to be on the CNF mailing li

00 t/) o

<u cr-^-rr— 'r- "r- nJ fO r—

> 4-> <U U 3

E

>

U O Q. O O O

•r- "O

T-

0) "O 3:

•r- -O 0) OJ t/1

0} in

Q) w

Q tD

Oi to c

c O) fQ a> 0) c C t- 'r-

OJ -M

V)

0)

•r- Q.

S. o

•»•> E

<0 l-H u.

4->

C r—

•o c

C *0 c u

O

OJ

to

<0

E +J tn

4->

C r— <U (U

•f- Q. E E c E C (U

Q 4-> t-»0a)'r-O«i-<0T-T-CCQ- OJ r— c

C7>Q:,Qr

.h-,tO,3 —J

.aE!

Ll- »-• UJ,Q£, OS, D-.tU

w jz

O)

1

<a

10 o u c/) rO

+J

<

1

<o

3

to

o fO

(-

O

C o: u c vj I—

(D(Ol.E or

(O

<u

O .

I 01 c <a o c

^ .

O-Mt- O n34->

• — — — — —

Name and address

Please make any necessary corrections

This is public information

J

I ' d b e w i l l i n g t o d i s t r i b u t e informational materials.

ORGANIZATIONS; If your answer is yes, please check off; like to receive articles. am willing to lend my mailing list.

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 1300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U •

AOR-IOI

U.S.MAIL

Coronado National Forest

Federal Building

301 W. Congress

Tucson, AZ 85701

+-> bO c

GO c

•H

<D

-Q

U

o

T)

Oj

O

<D

V)

C o

fX

I f )

<D ac

B

tiiz: u

(D

X

C

o

tj

0)

o

rt

<L>

u

49 the effectiveness of using organization newsletters to inform individuals of opportunities for participation, the Planning Forum Survey contained the following question:

How did you hear about this meeting? (Please check as many as apply.)

Invitation that came in the mail

Friend

Radio

Organization newsletter, which one?

TV

Newspaper story

Newspaper ad

Poster

Other communication channels were used as well. News releases were sent to all radio and TV stations in the area as well as to all newspapers including weeklies. Posters were printed and 100 posted throughout southeastern Arizona. Tvro thousand invitations were mailed to individuals and organizations. Douglas District bought a 3" by 5" ad in their local newspaper.

Prior to undertaking public notification of CNF Planning Forums, communications methods used in Tucson and their results were analyzed for insight into the situation. The Community Attitudes Survey contained a question on the ways people received information about community plan­ ning. Though this is not the same as National Forest planning, both concern land use planning.

Q5 From this card, tell me how you have heard about the CPP.

(Circle as many as apply.)

Surveys included in the city water bills

Friends or associates

Newspaper articles

Special CPP newspaper supplement

Television news

"Alternatives '73" TV program

50

Radio

Meetings

Advertising on buses or billboards

University or High School classes

Civic Clubs or organizations

Other: specify

Another aspect of this assumption is efficacy. An individual's sense of efficacy will influence the rate of participation, and an individual may gain efficacy through participation in organizations.

A direct approach to testing this assumption was to analyze a series of questions in the Arizona Legislative Study questionnaire concerning con­ tacting a state legislator. The series of questions were as follows:

Q7 Do you think your opinions of these problems will have any influence on your state legislators?

1. Yes, a lot of influence

2. Yes, some influence

3. Yes, but very little influence

4. No, no influence at all

Q8 Have you ever personally gone to see or spoken to, or written to your state legislator about some need or problem in the past few years?

1 .

2 .

3.

No

Yes, once

Yes, twice

4.

5.

Yes, three or 4 times

Yes, five or more times

Q8A (If No) IVhat was the reason you didn't contact your state legislator?

1. I never felt it was necessary

2. I felt it wouldn't do any good

3. I felt I needed to find someone who would contact my state legislator for me.

4. I never knew how to get in touch with my state legislator.

An indirect approach for measuring efficacy was to ascertain which groups a person thought had influence and then ask with which group a person

51 identified. If the person identified with a group perceived to have a lot of influence, one could say the person had a high feeling of effi­ cacy. The reverse would also hold true; a person who identified with a group perceived as having little influence would not feel very effica­ cious. The Arizona Legislative Study contained a question regarding group influence and another about identification with a group.

Q12 Now let's talk about some specific groups and interests.

How much influence, if any do you think the following groups and interests have on the state legislators?

A lot, some, a little, none, don't know.

The Ranchers

The Mines

The Railroads

The Utilities

The Banks

The Insurance Companies

The Labor Unions

The Farmers

The Churches

The Land Developers

The Housing Industry

The Environmentalists

The Law Firms

The Voters

The Consumer Groups

The Medical Associations

The Teacher Associations

The City Governments

The Manufacturing Interests

The Chamber of Commerce

The Minority Groups

The Poor

Other

Q13 IVhich of these Groups, if any, do you associate with, identify with or feel close to?

52

4.1.2. Minority Participation Will Bring a Viewpoint Regarding Natural Resources

That Is Different from the Anglo Majority

This assumption was tested using questions from the Arizona

Legislative Study that concerned environmental values and the importance of a number of problems in the state, including environmental problems.

Q30 One particular set of issues has received a great deal of attention in the past few years concerns the environment.

The following items are thought by many to be environmental problems in this state. Others do not agree. For each problem do you feel it is very serious, serious, not very serious, or no problem at all in this state?

1. Air pollution

2. Water pollution

3. Traffic congestion

4. Littering

5. Population growth

6. Strip mining

7. Housing development in rural or undeveloped areas

8. Water shortages

9. Soil erosion

10. Other

Q19 People have different ideas about how our natural resources should be used and conserved. Would you please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Strongly agree, agree, don't know, disagree, strongly disagree.

1. A certain amount of environmental damage in this state will have to be tolerated as the price for economic prosperity.

2. Ground water should be considered public property rather than private property.

3. Scientific research and technological developments can solve most environmental problems.

4. Industry should pay a severance tax on nonrenewable resources (coal, copper, etc.) taken from this state.

5. We should be willing to accept more air and water pollution in order to insure plentiful supplies of energy.

53

6. The Central Arizona Project should be completed.

7. The possible benefits from a nuclear powered electrical plant far outweigh the possible hazards.

8. This state should not permit environmental damage in order to produce energy for use in other states.

9. The seriousness of environmental problems in this state has been greatly exaggerated.

Q20 One natural resource issue which is currently receiving a lot of attention in this state is how land should be used. V/hich of the following land use proposals best describe what you feel should be done? (Circle the number of your answer.)

1. No planning or control; let people use land as they wish.

2. Limited planning and control. Decide how land can best be used, encourage that use, but allow changes to be made easily.

3. Fairly strict planning and control. Decide how land can best be used, strongly encourage that use, and provide very limited possibilities for change.

4. Very strict planning and control. Decide how land can best be used, and prevent any other use.

A way to test the importance of a problem is to ascertain a priority for a specific problem among a host of problems. Such a tradeoff was assessed in the Arizona Legislative Survey using budget priorities as the vehicle.

Q14 One of the most important things a state legislator decides is where to spend taxpayers money. For each of the issues listed below, please indicate whether you would favor the state legislator spending less money on these issues, the same amount, or more money than is now being spent?

1. Welfare programs

2. Highways

3. Pollution control

4. Crime prevention and control

5. Elementary and secondary education

6. Parks and recreational facilities

7. Energy and research development

54

8. Health and medical care

9. Colleges and universities

10. Economic development

11. Mass transportation

12. Job training

13. Consumer protection

14. State government and agencies

15. Aid to American Indians

16. Other, please specify.

Q15 Please list in order of importance the three issues from the list above on which you would like your state legislator to spend more money.

Q16 Now would you please list in order of importance the three issues on which you would like your state legislator to spend less money than it is now doing.

4.1.3. All Participating Citizens

Have Different Interests and Therefore

Form Overlapping Publics

The Planning Forum Survey administered at the CNF Planning Forums contained a question asking people how they would describe themselves.

Since they could check several interests, overlapping interests can be assessed.

How would you identify yourself? (Please check as many as apply.)

Taxpayer

Interested citizen

Rancher

Birdwatcher

Forest Service permittee

Mexican-American

Miner

Anglo

Environmentalist

Government official

Hunter

ORV enthusiast

Black

Forest Service employee

Other,

5 5

4.1.4. A Structured Citizen Participation

Meeting Format and Written Response Forms

Can Produce Comprehensive Information about

Natural Resource Management

There were several sub-sections to this assumption that were tested individually. First, minorities and Anglos will equally use structured meetings and response forms as a means of participation.

This is evaluated through analysis of response to questions from the

Community Attitudes Survey. Questions analyzed were;

Q8 Some people may have time while others have little or no time, to take part in activities to influence decisions made by local government. Do you consider yourself to be active or not active in local government affairs?

Active

Not active

Don't know

Q9 During the last year have you done any of the following?

(Circle as many as apply.)

Attended a Model Cities meeting

Written a letter to a local newspaper

Called or written a letter to a local elected official

Voted in a local election

Attending a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

Attended a city or town Council meeting or Board of Supervisors Meeting

Watched City Council on TV

Circulated a petition

Attended a public forum

None

Other (specify)

Secondly, the assumption assumes a workshop is the appropriate meeting format to gather comprehensive information. This was tested by conduct­ ing 12 Planning Forum workshops in 11 communities in southeastern Arizona.

Citizens and organizations on the mailing list were sent an invitation.

The Planning Forums were held in schools, community centers, and motel rooms--locations chosen for their size, accessibility, and familiarity

56 as a place for community meetings. Forums were held evenings and one on

Saturday so that working people could participate. In predominantly retirement communities. Forums were held in the afternoon so the older persons wouldn't have to drive at night. The meetings were held in all the towns where the District Offices were located, plus some other towns which were strategically located from a geographic point of view. Two meetings were held in Tucson; one in the central district in a school close to the minority sections of town in an effort to provide a familiar setting where ethnic minorities•would feel comfortable; the other meet­ ing was held in the eastern section of Tucson near the District Office.

A third meeting was held in the suburb of Catalina in northwestern

Tucson. This gave people in the largest population center three oppor­ tunities to participate.

Workshops were structured so that there was an exchange of infor­ mation, both from the Forest Service to the public and vice versa. The meeting began with a presentation by the Forest Service (Agenda, Figure

6]. The presentation covered the goal of the meeting, the planning process and dateline, the Forest boundaries and product produced, and constraints such as laws and existing decisions that were being incorpor­ ated. Participants were then randomly divided into small groups so that each person could speak and answer a series of questions designed to seek information on how the participants used the National Forest, what they saw as issues that needed planning, how they viewed the future of the Forest, both ideally and realistically, and provide an opportunity to bring forth management problems being experienced with present Forest management. All of the comments were recorded on large flip charts so

CORO^IADO NotimtaS

Land Management Planning Forums

AGEMDA

Sign In

Introduction

Explanation of the planning process

Slide Show

Explanation of decision making portions of the process

Break into small groups

Reassemble to share group input

Turn in response forms and evaluations

Evaluation: to help us improve the citizen involvement process, please comment on this meeting; the process used, and the clarity, readability and helpfulness of materials sent to you or seen here. Any additional remarks are welcome. Thank you.

You can drop this in the box on the sign-in table.

Figure 6. Agenda, CNF Land Management Planning Forums.

58 that the participants could see their statements were recorded and with what words. Comments were copied verbatim on 8^ by 11 paper for ease of handling and filing.

Workshops were implemented by the local Forest District people from a preplanned script. This added a consistency to the approach and to vchat was said by the Forest Service personnel. District personnel went through the public participation process as though they were citi­ zens, and then for training they practiced parts of the meeting. Special emphasis was placed on training in facilitating and recording in the small work groups.

4.1.5. Forest Service Will Use Public

Comment as a Basis for Issue Statements

After collecting the public comments, they needed to be analyzed and summarized in order to be useful to the decision makers.

Content analysis, a traceable visible system for analyzing comments, was used. A comment was compiled along with the reasons for that comment, and in the exact words used, to form the analysis packet.

Workgroup comments were coded as to group and location. Each letter and response form was assigned a number as it arrived. Two thousand response forms were mailed out and were franked so that they could be mailed back free. They were also anonymous. Each response form was analyzed in the content analysis. Since a response form bore its own number, it could be identified in the content analysis.

A letter writing campaign from the Natural History Research station in Portal had generated several hundred letters requesting that

Cave Creek be made into a national zoological area. These were included

5 9 in the content analysis since the issue of management practices in Cave

Creek would be treated in the land management plan. Comments from the response form and letters v;ritten regarding Cave Creek management were analyzed as well as workgroup comment. No effort was made to determine whether people present at each Planning Forum had also sent in a written comment. Each comment was taken at face value. Comments were analyzed for topic by location, as well as for ideas. This gave some measure as to how widespread the concern, use or problem was.

Each comment was treated as a valued expression of public senti­ ment. IVhere a number of people wrote the same thing, one comment was chosen as representing best the similar sentiments. Code numbers from the similar statements are added to the full comment. This was not a vote counting, but simply a way to express that many people has similar comments. Comments made by ten people were not more valuable than a comment made by one person. The code number by a comment meant it could be traced back to the letter as a whole, if one needed to understand better the context of the comment,

In addition to the workshop notes, letters, and response forms, the content analysis done for a workshop on an earlier (1974) plan, the

Huachuca Land Use Plan, was incorporated as well as the comments received regarding RARE II inventory comments from the Summer of 1977. The final draft of the Santa Catalina Unit Plan also received public comment and these remarks were added to the compilation.

Public comments were organized in four questions:

(1) How do you use the Forest?

60

(2) If you could have your way, how would the forest look in 1990?

Realistically, how will it look?

(3) What are the major issues or problems confronting the Coronado

National Forest, and the Forest Service nationally?

(4) IVhat management problems currently exist in the Coronado

National Forest, or IVhat are your compliments or complaints about the management of the forest?

A fifth category was for remarks that didn't fit into any of the other headings. Within each heading, the comments were divided up into resource categories such as grazing, trails, recreation, mining, etc.

The comments were taped onto colored sheets of paper; the color coding made it easier to keep separate the different topics of the remarks.

Uses was pink, dream future was yellow, realistic future was white, issues was blue, compliments and complaints was green.

A packet of all comments was given to each member of the techni­ cal work groups, composed of Forest Service professionals. The tehnical work groups, formed around resource topics, read through the materials and wrote out issue statements from what citizens had said. After each group had gone through all the issue material, two representatives from each technical work group and the planning group met to integrate the issue statements. Recommendations were made to the decision-making group composed of the Forest Supervisor and District Rangers regarding which were issues that were appropriate for land management planning discussion, which issues were to be addressed in other plans such as a law enforce­ ment plan, or which issues were to be addressed at budget making time since they were already addressed by Forest Service policy.

6 1

An interim list of issue statements was written. The planning group went through the whole packet of comments to ensure that no under­ lying issues on uses, futures or compliments and complaints had been overlooked.

The decision-making group had the responsibility for deciding which issues v/ould be covered in land management planning.

4.1.6. As Part of the Ongoing Dialogue with

Its Constituency, the Forest Service Will

Provide Feedback Regarding Public Comment

A description of each public forum and the list of issues was written up in a tabloid format newspaper called Forest Feedback and sent to individuals and groups on the mailing list as well as all the people who had attended the Planning Forums. The criteria by which issues were placed in land management planning or in some other category were also explained in the newsletter. A coupon was outlined in Forest Feedback for people to clip and mail back if they thought any issues had been missed. The tabloid carried pictures of the Forums as well as other information concerning planning and policy on the Coronado National

Forest. f

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS FROM TESTING ASSUMPTIONS

Results from testing of the assumptions occurred in different formats; expressed in numerical tables, prose description of workshops, and the resulting public comment. IVhere statistical analysis is appro­ priate, tests for significance of differences have been reported. IVhere there are no significant differences, the data is not presented. The discussion of the significance of these results to the overall theme of public participation is presented in Chapter 6. However, the discussion of individual data sets to highlight interpretation of the tables does occur in this chapter.

5.1. Results from Testing Stated Assumptions

Results from testing the assumptions are contained in this chapter. Each assumption is listed in the same order as in Chapter 4, followed by the results.

5.1.1. Citizens, Including Ethnic Minorities,

Who Form Participating Publics Can Be Reached

Thorough Interest Groups

This assumption was tested in three parts: (1) generating a mailing list, (2) use of organization newsletters for information in comparison to other sources, and (3] a sense of efficacy.

62

63

The percentage of groups that responded to the letter inviting them to participate in the land management planning process is shown in

Table 3. The environmental groups did have the highest response percent­ age followed by ranch and farm groups. Third in terms of percentage responses were sporting groups including hunting organizations. These three groups do have a stake in National Forest management. Youth groups

(Boy Scouts and Camp Fire Girls), businesses, homeowners associations, and senior citizen groups all exceeded the average response rate. Sur­ prising was the low response rate from Service Clubs [Lions and Opti­ desire additional information regarding planning. As well, professional organizations had a low response rate. Theory suggests that participa­ tion is more likely to occur among more highly educated people (Verba and Nie, 1972, pp. 98-99). There was no response from fraternal groups and school groups such as the PTA..

The minority organizations did not respond to the letter inviting them to join the CNF mailing list (Figure 7). Based on the average response rate shown in Table 3, at least one response would be expected from the largest ethnic grouping of organizations, the Mexican-American group. This did not occur. Black and Indian groups did not return the response cards either. Organizations found on the mailing list were formed primarily to deal with health and social problems (see Figure 7).

About 30 organizations sent their mailing lists and their members were mailed a letter and a response card (Table 4). Individuals who checked on the response card that they had a mailing list were also sent

64

Table 5. Groups invited to be on the CNF mailing list.

Group Category

Total

Groups not directly solicited, but from whom responses were received

# of Groups

Contacted

Labor

School Service

Fraternal

Sports

Political

Veterans

Youth

Professional

Church

Service Clubs

Hobby

Farm and Ranch

Literary-Art

School-Fraternal

Nationality-State

Clubs

Senior Citizen Clubs

Social-Health

Services

Homeowner

Business

Environmental

Miscellaneous

22

21

89

11

21

1

1002

39

11

55

36

25

49

22

66

51

125

189

6

35

17

35

Percentage

Responded

4

4

4

4

12

21

2

1

0

4

1

0

7

2

2

3

11

14

2

11

0

107

42

% of Grp.

Response

10.3

9.1

0

19.4

8.0

8.1

18.2

6.1

7.8

9.6

11.1

33.3

2.9

0

5.7

% of All

Response

3.7

0.9

0

6.5

1.9

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

11.2

19.6

0.9

0

1.9

13.6

52.4

15.7

18.1

52.4

0

10.7

2.8

10.4

12.1

1.9

10.4

0

98.8

Chicano Consortium for Public Issues

L.U.L.A.C. Tucson

L.U.L.A.C. Safford

MANPO Wilcox

Mexican American NonProfit Organization

MECHA Tucson, University of Arizona

MECHA Tucson, Pima Junior College

Mexican American Professional Health Organization

Mexican American Unity Council

League of Mexican American Women

NOSOTROS

Social Unidos Club

Sociedad Mutualista de Obreros Mexico, Douglas

Sociedad Mutualista Proferia Diaz, Tucson

Tucson Mexican Chamber of Commerce

Una Noche Plateada

Blacks

Afro American Coordinating Committee

Black Feminists Organization

Black Women In Progress

Colored Womens Association Progressive Civic Club

NAACP

Tucson Urban League

Native Americans

Affiliation of Native American Women

Papago Indian Agency

Pascua-Yaqui Association

San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe

Traditional Indian Alliance

Tucson Indian Center

Chinese Americans

Chinese Americans Citizens Alliance

Chinese Community Center

Figure 7. Minority organizations mailed a letter and response card.

6 6

Table 4. Statistics on response cards returned.

Note: Organizations includes governmental agencies, officials, cities and counties.

Individuals responding (n = 1638)

Cards

VMith only topics and areas (n = 1140)

Cards with offers of lists, etc. (n = 498) distribution of information newsletters mailing list

84.3%

42.0%

15.5%

69.6%

30.4%

Organizations (n = 211)

Cards with only topics and areas (n = 86)

Cards with offers of lists, etc. (n= distribution of information newsletters mailing list

72.8%

62.4%

40.0%

Returned with no address (n = 23)

Asked to be removed from the mailing list (n = 15)

Total cards returned = 1887

40.8%

59.2%

67 a letter requesting their list. Few of them responded and those that did, replied as organizations.

One such organization, Tlie Natural History Museum, had a mailing list of scientists from all over the United States and the world who had used a research station located near the CNF boundary. This provided a national and international public who had been to the area and had a special stake in certain kinds o£ management practices.

The described process increased the number of people who were reached but also caused a problem of duplicate mailings. Duplications were screened out by a tedious checking of names against cards returned, but not against those mailed and not returned. Duplication is wasteful and presents an image to the outside worlds of carelessness. In order to check duplication, every mailing list would have required duplication and checking against all others and that was judged as too time consuming and costly.

Using first class mail meant undeliverable mail was returned to the Forest Service and many permittee address changes were discovered.

Sometimes a letter was sent to one organization, to an officer, and then was returned on behalf of another organization by that same individual.

The letters appear to have been passed around since response cards came back with new addresses and different organizations on the label.

The process used generated a mailing list of about 3200 people and organizations, most of whom were not getting Forest Service informa­ tion before. About 10,000 letters were sent out. The list is larger than the response cards returned, due to the addition of all Forest

Service permittees.

The mailing list was stored with the information filled in on the response cards punched on the file cards so that special mailing lists covering only one mountain range or special topics such as fire manage­ ment could be generated. It was a successful though long and tedious project. The major missing publics are minority organizations. To the extent ethnic minorities are involved in other organizations, they are getting information about forest planning.

Organizations and individuals both responded positively to the question on the response form concerning newsletters (Table 4). People wanting newsletter articles ranged from editors of the Caving newsletter to independent writers. A mailing list was generated and used to send out newsletter articles ready for insertion into a newsletter as part of the publicity campaign for the public forums.

No television stations carried the story and few radio stations did. In two of the District toivns, the District Ranger did a program on radio to increase the publicity. Few stories appeared in the news­ papers and often then were only an announcement of the public meeting.

Results of the question on the source of meeting information from the Planning Forum Survey (Table 5) indicated that organization newsletters (19%) were the third most mentioned source after invitations source of information. ORV enthusiasts and miners had the highest per­ centages of their groups members mention organization newsletters.

There is a question about how accurately people reported how they had heard since all permittees were mailed an invitation but only 66% responded that is how they heard. The difference from the expected 100%

Table 5. How groups heard about the CNF Planning Forums.

Multiple responses. Percent distribution of responses is given.

Organization Newspaper Newspaper

Self-Identification Invitation Friend Radio Newsletter Television Story Ad Poster

Taxpayer (n = 283)

Interested citizen

(n = 305)

Rancher (n = 81)

Bii'dwatcher (n=109)

52

47

61

51

Environmentalist

(n = 145)

53

55

48

ORV enthusiast (n = 37) 43

Forest Service 66

Mexican-American (n = 7) 14

Government Official

52

0

52

41

44

28

44

1 2

41

40

43

31

57

43

0

48

13

12

1 2

9

1 2

10

15

8

21

14

1 2

0

19

18

18

27

18

29

23

25

32

22

14

19

0

5

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

17

16

9

14

12

15

15

5

18

29

17

0

5

0

5

6

5

15

14

29

1 0

0

0

6

9

1 2

7

8

6

14

8

0

5

Total of all person

45 43 13 19

15

7 0

could be that either a husband or a wife didn't see the mail and came to the meeting at the request of the spouse or that the invitation didn't reach the permittee due to an incorrect address.

The Tucson Community Attitude Survey (Arizona Institute of

Research, 1974) asked residents how they had heard about the Comprehen­ sive Planning Process CCPP). Multiple responses were recorded to the question. In order to evaluate the data for significant differences, each response category was treated separately. They are all displayed together in Table 6 only for convenience of comparisons. Significant differences were calculated for ethnic groups by specific source men­ tioned versus source not mentioned (calculated as n minus mentioned specific source). Newspaper stories and TV news were mentioned most often by all groups as news sources for CPP. There is a statistically significant difference between all ethnic group responses only for news­ papers and surveys in the water bill.

Antunes and Gaitz (1974) found in their study that exposure to news in the mass media did not differ significantly among Blacks, Anglos, and Mexican-Americans. They did find a signficant interaction between age, socioeconomic status and news exposure. The respondent's score was based on an additive index (0-3) for indicating a preference for news or documentary programs on television, 1 point for a preference for front page or editorial section of newspaper, and 1 point for indicating a preference for "serious" mass circulation magazines such as Time.

A relationship between a citizen's sense of political efficacy and tendency to belong to organizations concerned v\fith city problems was found in data collected by the Urban Observatory Study (Steggert, 1975).

Table 6. How ethnic groups heard about the GPP.

Attitudes Survey (Arizona Institue of Government, 1974).

71

•J)

2

O

U

(U p.

TO

P-

2

C/3

2

>

(D

O

• H

rt

rH

•H

03

CO •P to

CO

•p CQ

O.

2

a:

<

0) f-H cc-

3

C/D

E

CJ

•H

4->

a> C3

-M

rH

o

CSi

c

•r^

O

XI

o

o

D

r H

> 0/) u u

O

> •H

C3 s u

C/D

Z

m o

(A

> t/) c

r~H t/i n c

C2 •H •H

C

CO

o

o

?H

=3 u <

> <U k +J

D

03

CO

37

37 13 4 4 8

Mexican-American 31

(n = 144)

26 13 2 2 10

Black (n = 25)

Indian (n = 24)

X ' d.f. p

40 24 12 4 0 8

21

8 0 0 0 0

2 3 2 2 11

1 1 2 2 1 0

4 0 8 0 0

4 0 4 0 0

2 . 2

7.9 6.0 2.5 3.9 6.1 1.6 3.5 3.6 1.9 9.5

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

.53

.05 .11 .5 .28 .11 .66 .32 .3 .69 .02

Although nonmember respondents tended to have efficacy scores at the lower end of the scale, the relationship was not significant. If the

72 efficacy scores around 8.3, which was the mean, were eliminated, a sig­ nificant difference emerges (Table 7). Efficacy is also related to tions concerning who really" runs the city, how much do people count in local government, and what is the best way people like you can make them­ selves heard by the city government. Coding and weighting alternatives and summing items produce a political efficacy index. Scores ranged from

3 to 15 with a higher score indicating a greater belief that personal action as a citizen makes sense.

In directly asking Arizona respondents if they felt they had an influence on state legislators (Table 9) there is a significant differ­ ence between the responses of Anglos and ethnic minorities. There are no significant differences between minority groups.

Table 10 contains the responses of individuals regarding contact­ ing their state legislator, and Table 11 has the reasons why the respon­ dents did not contact their legislator. There are significant differ­ ences between Anglo and minority responses in both data sets. Indians had a response rate of 50% that didn't know how to contact their legisla­ tor, much larger than the other groups.

Responses to the question regarding which three of a list of 21 groups with which an individual identified contains no significant dif­ ferences between Anglos, Blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Indians in identifying with labor, churches, environmentalists, and manufacturers

(Table 12). There are significant differences in identifying with

73

Table 7. Feelings of efficacy by membership in groups.

Source: recoded data. Urban Observatory Program's Citizen's

Attitude Survey, 1972, as published in Steggert (1975).

Membership

Classification

Members

Nonmembers

Total Survey Group

3 through 7

Efficacy Scores

9 through 15

32.5%

41.1%

40.0%

67.5%

58.9%

6 0 . 0 %

Table 8. Feelings of efficacy by class and ethnic groups.

Source; Recoded data. Urban Observatory Program's Citizen's

Social Class by

Race in Survey Group 3 through 7

Efficacy Scores

9 through 15

Upper Class l\fhite^

Black'^

Middle Class

IVhite

Black

Lower Class

Miite

Black

Total Survey Group

30.0%

32.3%

36.5%

42.1%

49.8%

55.7%

39.6%

70.0%

67.7%

63.5^

57.9^

50.2%

60.4%

Includes people of Spanish descent.

'includes small number of other nonwhite groups,

74

Table 9. Ethnic group feelings of influence on state legislators.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingi'am et al., 1980).

Anglo (n = 629)

Mexican-American

Cn = 69)

Black (n = 12)

Indian fn = 18)

Response

Yes, Lots Yes, Some Yes, Very Little None

4

13

8

22

= 22.05 d.f. = 9

28

33

25

39 p = < .01

38

25

33

17

30

29

33

2 2

Table 10. Ethnic group contact with state legislators.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source; Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Group Did Contact

Anglo (n = 636)

Mexican-American (n = 77)

Black Cn = 19)

Indian (n = 18)

= 16.58 d.f. =3 p = < .01

41

18

32

33

75

Table 11. Reasons for not contacting a state legislator by ethnic groups.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source; Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Anglo (n = 636)

Mexican-American

(n = 77)

Black (n = 19)

Indian = 18)

Did

Not

Necessary

Response

Does No

Good

Need

Someone

41

18

16

18

34

43

32

33

5

0

37

17

How

21

26

50

X

53.54 d.f. = 12 p = < .01

Table 12. Etiinic group identification with other groups.

Source: Arizona Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Anglo (n = 799)

Mexican-American

(n = 92)

Black (n = 25)

Indian (n = 24)

Environ- Poor

Labor Churches mentalists Voters Minorities People Manufacturer None

25

5

3

0

87

7

5

1

36

1

0

0

199

7

1

3

18

25

7

4

37

13

6

5

9

1

0

0

264

21

3

6

77 voters, minorities, poor people, and none. In each instance, the signif­ icant difference exists between Anglos and minority groups. In the question of influence, there are significant differences in perception of the influence of manufacturers (Table 13), voters (Table 14), and minorities (Table 15). The differences are between Anglos and the minor­ ity groups.

The percentage of minority groups who felt manufacturers had too much influence was higher than the Anglos. Only one Mexican-American identified with manufacturers. Though the overall table is not stastically significant at the p = .05 level, there is a significant difference between ethnic groups. In answers to "too much" and "about right" amount of influence there is a significant difference betvvreen ethnic groups. The Blacks felt strongly manufacturers had too much influence.

Anglos had the lowest percentage sharing that opinion. Some Anglos iden­ tified with manufacturers, and no Blacks did.

One would think since everyone has the right to be a voter and since the country is run by the citizens, then voters can't have too much influence. This view is not shared by the respondents (Table 14).

The difference between group perceptions of voter influence is statisti­ cally significant between the Anglo and other groups, not between the minority viewpoints. Most of the difference is contained in the "too much," "too little," and "no influence" categories. Anglos identified strongly with voters (25%) (Table 12) compared to the minority groups.

There are significant differences between the ethnic group views of the influence of minority groups on the state legislature

(Table 15). As might be expected, the significant difference also

78

Table 13. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of manufacturers on the state legislature.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Too Much

Response

Right Too Little None

Anglo (n = 603) 38

45

32 Mexican-American (n = 68)

Blacks (n = 14)

Indians (n = 11)

X' = 15.27

46

79 14 d.f. = 9

55 36 p = .08

16

19

7

9

2

3

0

0

Table 14. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of voters on the state legislature.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Anglo (n = 660)

Mexican-American (n = 78)

Blacks (n = 17)

Indians (n = 17)

X' = 20.2 d.f.

Too Much

Response

Right Too Little None

21

30

18

53

37

44

41

30

.02

34

19

41

18

7

8

0

0

79

Table 15. Ethnic group perceptions of the amount of influence of minorities on the state legislature.

Percent distribution of responses is given. Source; Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Too Much

Response

Right Too Little None

Anglo Cn = 624)

Mexican-American (n = 76)

Black (n = 15)

Indian (n = 16)

= 28.9

27

12

0

30

25

20 d.f. = 9

31

P = .01

13

31

40

60

37

12

24

20

19

80 exists between Anglo and the other three groups. Over half of the

Blacks, Indians, and Mexican-Americans felt minority groups have "too little" or "no influence," and this is significantly different from the

Anglo viewpoint. No Blacks thought minorities had too much influence and several Indians and Mexican-Americans thought they did. Blacks, Indians, and Mexican-Americans identified strongly (17% - 28%) with minority groups

(Table 12).

Regarding the influence of churches in government, there are no significant differences among ethnic groups (Table 16). Close examina­ tion of the responses "too much" and "no influence" reveals a significant difference between Black responses and that of the other three groups.

Over half of the Blacks felt churches had "too much" or "about right" amount of influence as a contrast to less than half of the other groups holding the same opinion. Blacks identified strongly (20%) with churches

(Table 12). In this situation then. Blacks would gain a feeling of efficacy since they identified with a group they felt had influence.

5.1.2. Minority Participation Will Bring a Viei\fpoint Regarding National Resources

That Is Different from the Anglo Majority

Data show that when questioned regarding the seriousness of nine environmental problems (see Chapter 4, p. 52), there are significant differences of opinion among ethnic groups regarding five problems; air pollution, water pollution, strip mining, population growth, and water shortages (Table 17). In the remaining four problems, traffic, litter­ ing, rural development, and soils erosion, there are no significant differences between ethnic groups in overall response pattern. In rural

81

Table 16. Ethnic group perception of the amount of influence of churches on the state legislature.

Percent distribution of responses is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Too Much

Response

Right Too Little None

Anglo (n = 593)

Mexican-American (n = 70)

Black (n = 15)

Indian (n = 15)

X' = 13.5 d.f. = 9

7

7

26

27

34

33

20 13

P- = = .14

45

34

27

53

21

23

13

13

82

Table 17. Environmental problems as perceived by ethnic groups.

Percent distribution by response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Problem

Air Pollution

Anglo

[x' =

27.75

708 22

Mexican-American 82

Black 18

Indian 20

22

28

20

Water Pollution [x' = 30.84

Anglo 709 18

Mexican-American 81

Black 18

Indian 20

33

28

40

Population Growth

[x' =

45.9

Anglo 708 28

Mexican-American 80

Black

18

Indian 19

39

0

37

Strip Mining

Anglo

Mexican-American

Black

Indian

[x' =

40.30

705

81

14

16

18

20

22

25

Water Shortage

Anglo

[x' = 41.18

706

27

Mexican-American 82

Blacks

Indians

18

20

31

6

45

Response very not not very n serious serious sure serious no problem

44

42

17

55

7

5

P = .04]

25

22

23

28

10 5

38

27

39

30

17

P = .01]

24

19

17

5

16

11

15

38

35

28

47

12

9

P = <.01]

19

14

11

5

10

39

5

25

25

17

45

12

30

44

56

25

P =

20

14

6

0

43

40

44

10

12

16

18

39

30

P = <.01]

13

7

0

10

2

7

6

10

3

5

6

10

6

3

22

5

12

1

0

5

2

4

11

5

development, however, there is a significant difference between "serious and "very serious." More Blacks and Indians felt rural development was a "serious" and "very serious" problem than did the Anglos and Mexican-

Americans. This may reflect the rural living style of the.Indians. Per haps this was a remembrance of past rural living of the Blacks, although in the southwest most Blacks today live in an urban setting.

In the five problems with significant differences among ethnic group response patterns, there was no consistent pattern of differences among groups. Rather, each topic brings out a distinct pattern, seem­ ingly explicable in terms of group interest. For each environmental problem, the possibility of differences among groups with respect to the contrast "not sure" versus stating an opinion about the seriousness of the problem was checked first. "Not sure" may mean that the respon­ dent had little interest in the issue. Another interpretation is that the respondent probably had not read or heard enough to form an opinion.

Still another possibility is that "not sure" is a neutral assessment of the seriousness of the problera--not quite "serious," but of a bit more concern than "not very serious." Attention then is focused on these persons who stated an opinion, that the problem was "very serious,"

"serious," "not very serious," or "no problem," Some of the significant differences in opinion among ethnic groups are selected for comment in an attempt to show the influence of group interest on perception of the problem.

Water shortage. The Blacks and Indians were more often "not sure," Although the groups did not differ with respect to the relative frequency of stating that water shortages are "very serious" and

84

"serious" in contrast to "not very serious" and "no problem," Indians more often see the problem as "very serious" rather than "serious" and

Blacks more often commented that there was "no problem" rather than a

"not very serious" problem. Blacks in Arizona are primarily urban dwell­ ers who turn on a water tap and water flows forth. Shortage or not is a reflection of rural residents who drill their own wells and face first hand water shortages, experience dropping water tables and fluctuating irrigation supplies. Some governments have talked about water shortages and governmental believability may also be reflected in the water short­ age question.

Strip Mining. Blacks and Mexican-Americans were more often

"not sure" about strip mining than were Anglos and Indians. Most Indians and most of the Mexican-.'Xinericans and Blacks stating an opinion answered that strip mining was a "very serious" or "serious" problem, but Anglos answered "no problem" or "not very serious" about as often as they answered "serious" or "very serious." The greater concern of the Indians may reflect the existence of a large strip mine for coal on Black Mesa on the Hopi Reservation.

Population Growth. Responses regarding population growth as a problem mirrored national trends. There were significant differences between ethnic groups as to response patterns as well as to those opin­ ions postive or negative. Over half of the Blacks felt population growth was not a "very serious problem." Nationally, Blacks have stated that population control is genocide for them and have argued against population growth as a problem. Over 60% of the other groups felt that population growth was a "serious" or "very serious" problem.

85

Water Pollution and Air Pollution. These also had significant differences in ethnic group response patterns. The Anglos had the smallest percentage thinking water pollution was a "very serious" prob­ lem and the Indians had the highest percentage. There were significant differences in the response patterns between "serious" and "very seri­ ous." Blacks were more convinced there was a problem with water pollu­ tion than water shortages. Air pollution problems brought forth significant differences in the "not very serious" and "no problem" responses. Fewer Indians felt air pollution wa-s "not very serious" problem compared to the other three groups. Indians living in the wide open spaces may have a greater sensitivity to air quality and visibility for long distance.

From a series of questions

C Q 1 9

j

P - 5 2 )

regarding values and tradeoffs revolving around environmental concerns, three of nine state­ ments showed significant differences in ethnic response patterns (Table

18). These three were environmental damage is necessary for economic prosperity, science will have solutions for environmental problems, and nuclear benefits outweigh hazards. In the science solutions question, most striking was the Indians' high percentage response of "not sure."

This can be accounted for by a v^forld vie\\( based on different cultural context than the other groups. Though Mexican-Americans have joined to some extent the scientific solution to problems, there is a significant difference still between combined minorities and Anglos. For the ques­ tion "environmental damage is necessary" there is a significant differ­ ence between "not sure" and having an opinion. Anglos had definite opinions and the three minority groups were "not sure,"

86

Table 18. Environmental values as perceived by ethnic groups.

Percent distribution by response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980). n

Strongly

Agree

Response

Not Strongly

Agree Sure Disagree Disagree

"A certain amount of environmental damage in this state will have to be tolerated as the price for economic prosperity."

Anglo

Mexican-American 80

Black

Indian

X^ = 57.52

699

19

19

16

11

11

5 d.f. = 12

50

41

21

7

23

53

21

P = <.01

42

21

19

11

31

6

6

5

0

"Scientific research and technological developments can solve most environmental problems."

Anglo

695

Mexican-American 82

13

17

45

38

23

33

17

7

2

5

Black

Indian

19 21

X^ = 24.62

20 5 d.f. = 12

32

25 p = .02

37

55

11

15

0

0

"The possible benefits from a nuclear powered electrical plant far ou1 weigh the possible hazards, I f

Anglo 697

27 32

28 9 4

9 Mexican-American

81

Black 19

Indian

17

11 o _ _

= 29.99

20 5 d.f. =12

21 49

53

32

40 p = <.01

45

5

5

4

0

5

"The Central Arizona Project should be completed."

Anglo 698 26 43 25

Mexican-American 82

Black 19

28

16

Indian

X^ = 11.89

19 37 d.f. = 12

40

42

53 p = .47

26

42

5

4

4

0

5

2

2

0

0

IVhile the overall response pattern for the issue of the Central

Arizona Project (CAP), a Bureau of Reclamation water transportation project, does not contain significant differences, there were differ­ ences between ethnic group responses in "not sure" and having an opinion that were significant. The Native Americans had strong opinions support­ ing CAP and very few (5%) were "not sure." In contrast. Blacks had 43% response of "not sure," and Anglos and Mexican-Americans had 26% and 25% respectively for "not sure." The Indians-in southern Arizona may be allotted a large part of the water from the project and this may be the reason for the response.

"Are environmental problems being exaggerated" was another issue that does not display significant differences between ethnic group responses overall, but significant differences do show up in the "dis­ agree" versus "strongly disagree" responses. Blacks had a much lower percentage than the other groups in "disagree" and had a higher percent­ age in "strongly disagree," About a third of the other groups "strongly disagreed" about exaggeration of environmental problems. Perhaps the

Blacks'more urban living doens't bring them into contact with the envi­ ronmental problems or maybe other problems such as education are more pressing and so environmental problems are not important.

Land planning is a complex issue concerning allocation of resources and the rights of the individual to use something they own as they wish without government interference CQ20, p. 53). There are sig­ nificant differences between ethnic groups in their attitude toward land planning and control (Table 19). Indians, Blacks, and Mexican-Americans who had almost the same percentage (47 - 48%), agreed that there should

88

Table 19. Ethnic group attitudes toward land planning.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Response

No Planning Limited or Control Planning

Fairly

Strict

Very

Strict Group

Anglo (n = 690) 3 34

Mexican-American (n = 81)

Black (n = 17)

Indian (n = 19)

= 31.9

6 48

12 47 d.£. = 9

26

P- = = .003

47

47

31

29

11

15

15

12

16

be limited planning and control and changes could easily be made. The

Anglos felt (47%) that planning and control should be fairly strict.

Indians had the largest percentage (25%) feeling there should be no control. Blacks had the smallest (12%) percentage saying there should be very strict control.

Governments and bureaucracies use budgets to set priorities and money as needed. This assumes that a problem could alvv^ays use mere money to solve it. Respondents in the Arizona Legislature Survey were asked if government should spend less, same or more money on a series of programs such as welfare, highways, pollution control, energy research, etc. Out of the 15 programs mentioned (Q14, p. 53), there are statisti­ cally significant differences in ethnic group responses to funding 11 programs (Table 20). Responses to economic development, mass transpor­ tation, highway, and pollution control programs are significantly differ­ ent at the .05 level. The overall impression from the data is that people wanted to fund all programs at a higher level. However, a better test for citizen priorities for government spending appears to be asking respondents to choose three programs for more spending (Q15, p. 54) and three programs to receive less funds (Q16, p. 54). Iflien asked to list in order of importance three programs for which the state should spend more money, there are significant differences between ethnic groups.

Energy research was the natural resource topic most often mentioned as one of the top priorities. Thirteen percent of the Anglos mentioned energy research as first priority; 18% mentioned it as second priority, and 14% as third priority. Eleven percent of the Indians mentioned

90

Table 20. Ethnic group attitude toward governmental spending.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Arizona

Legislative Study (Ingram et al., 1980).

Less

Response

Same More

Welfare

Anglo (n = 695) 63

Mexican-American (n = 81)

Black (n = 19)

40

21

Indian C" = 20)

= 58.17 d.f. =8 p = <.01

30

Crime Prevention and Control

Anglo (n = 702)

Mexican-American (n = 82)

Black (n = 19)

Indian (n = 20)

= 19.99 d.f. =8 p = .01

2

2

5

10

Elementary Education

Anglo (n = 696)

Mexican-.American (n = 82)

Black (n = 19)

Indian (n = 20)

X^ = 41.75 d.f. =8 p = <.01

9

0

0

5

Parks

Anglo (n = 697)

Mexican-American (n = 80)

Black (n = 19)

Indian (n = 20)

X^ = 20.25 d.f. = p = <.01

2 2

13

0

35

27

36

26

35

16

15

21

40

59

53

68

45

52

39

11

25

8 2

83

74

50

1 1

24

52

35

39

61

89

70

19

03

20

Table 20.--Continued.

Less

Energy Research and Development

Anglo (n = 695)

Mexican-American Cn = 82)

Black (n = 18)

Indian (n = 20)

= 17.13 d.£. =8 p = .03

5

5

6

15

Health and Medical Care

Anglo (n = 695)

Mexican-American (n = 81)

Black (n = 19)

Indian (n = 20)

= 30.0 d.f. =8 p = <.01

8

3

5

10

Colleges and Universities

Anglo (n = 693) 25

Mexican-American (n = 79)

Black (n = 19)

10

5

Indian (n = 20)

X^ = 40.95 d.f. =8 p = <.01

15

Job Training

Anglo (n = 695)

Mexican-American (n = 82)

Black (n = 19)

Indian (n = 20)

X^ = 70.2 d.f. =8 p = <.01

14

4

0

15

Consumer Protection

Anglo (n = 691)

Mexican-American (n = 81)

Black (n = 18)

Indian (n = 19)

X^ = 18.83 d.f. =8 p = .02

10

4

0

5

91

Response

Same More

51

24

16

IS

28

43 •

33

35

68

52

61

50

47

28

16

20

58

61

37

45

45

38

17

53

45

69

79

70

17

30

58

40

35

72

84

70

45

58

83

42

92

Less

State Government

Anglo (n = 692)

Mexican-American (n = 80)

Black (n = 18)

Indian Cri = 20)

= 39.68 d.f. =

Aid to Indians

Anglo (n = 694)

Mexican-American (n = 79)

Black (n = 18)

Indian (n = 20)

= 63.91 d.f. = p = <.01

56

30

33

2 1

p = <.01

30

14

17

10

Response

Same

38

6 0 •

57

53

51

39

33

25

More

6

10

11

26

1 8

47

SO

65

energy research as top priority for spending more compared to 7% of the

Mexican-Americans and none of the Blacks. In a similar question on priorities for less government spending, there are significant differ­ ences between ethnic group responses for first and second priority and natural resources programs received more frequent mention. As a first priority for less spending, 13% c.. the Blacks mentioned pollution con­ trol with another 13% mentioning the program as second priority for reduced spending. Nineteen percent of the Blacks had energy research as a second priority for less spending. Parks were seen by 13% of the

Indians as top priority for less spending; 15% put it as second prior­ ity and 18% as third priority.

In terms of money, more emphasis was requested for education, job training, and crime prevention. Less money was asked for welfare, state government, mass transit, and parks. Environmental topics did not seem to be very important in view of the many problems people perceived.

There were, then, certain topics on which ethnic minorities had differ­ ent views from the dominant Anglo group. To the extent citizen partici­ pation is to be representative of the polity as a whole, then minority views need to be present.

5.1.3. All Participating Citizens

Have Different Interests and Therefore

Form Overlapping Publics

The Planning Forum survey contained a question on selfidentification (Table 21). Taxpayers and interested citizens were most commonly used terms for self-identification.

Table 21. Self-identification of CNF Planning Forum participants, n = 380. Multiple responses.

94

Category

Taxpayer

Interested Citizen

Rancher

Birdwatcher

Miner

Environmentalists

Hunter

ORV Enthusiast

Forest Service Permittee

Government Official

Forest Service Employees

Anglo

Mexican-American

Black

Other (mostly outdoor recreation activities)

% of All

Forums

75

80

21

29

5

38

3

62

2

0

30

22

10

22

6

Highest % at a Forum

100

100

63

71

29

86

50

27

63

28

13

80

6

0

39

Lowest % at a Forum

63

70

6

6

0

13

0

0

10

0

0

13

0

0

19

95

The missing groups were the ethnic minorities. The survey showed only 2% Mexican-Americans present. This is very low compared to their percentage in the population ranging from 77% in Santa Cruz

County to 23% in Pima County. Blacks ranged from 0% in Greenlee County to 4.5% in Pinal County and none identified themselves at the Forums.

Visual observation suggested one was present. The category of Native

American was not on the questionnaire, so no data was gathered.

People never belong to just one public. Ranchers are also taxpayers, maybe birdwatchers, and perhaps hunters. The overlapping of the publics is the ground where the communication starts and compro­ mise can begin. In the Forums, there was such overlap. Table 22 shows it. Of the ranchers surveyed, 72% also called themselves taxpayers,

16% also called themselves birdwatchers, and 30% also identified them­ selves as hunters.

Several interesting points can be made from the table. First,

"taxpayers" is usually used as a label by resource users who don't like to pay for government. However, "ranchers," generally viewed as conser­ vative had the lowest percentage calling themselves "taxpayers."

Secondly, "interested citizen" is a term frequently used by more envi­ ronmentally sensitive people. Ranchers used it the least, environmental­ ists and Lrdwatchers had 95% who also identified themselves as

"interested citizens." Thirdly, one might predict that 100% of the birdwatchers would call themselves environmentalists. It's the picture of the little old lady in tennis shoes stopping the dam for a nesting pair. But interestingly enough, only 74% of the birdwatchers also called themselves environmentalists. For some birdwatchers, perhaps

Table 22, Overlapping publics based on self-identification by participants at CNF Planning Forums,

Percent distribution of response is given.

Taxpayer

Interested Citizen

Rancher

Birdwatcher

Miner

Env st

Hunter

ORV Enthusiast

Taxpayer

Interested

Citizen

Rancher Birdwatcher Miner

Environ­ mentalist Hunter

ORV

Enthusiast

X

84

72

85

82

87

82

92

90

X

65

95

88

95

89

89

20

17

X

12

41

11

28

11

33

34

16

X

18

56

20

19

5

5

9

3

X

3

14

14

45

45

20

74

29

X

34

35

25

24

30

16

71

20

X

62

12

12

5

6

11

9

27

X

KD

ON

97 environmentalist is too activist a word. They see birdwatching as a hobby, quietly and peacefully remote from the political activism of the environmental movement.

Fourthly, another interesting overlap is that 71% of the miners also identified themselves as hunters. Of the hunters,

21%

also iden­ tified themselves as ORV enthusiasts, and 34% of hunters saw themselves also as environmentalists. It becomes quite evident that the label of environmentalist begins to embrace many people with seemingly different viewpoints. But put perhaps in the perspective of "environmental" as concerned about the National Forest, perhaps it is not so strange. The people present at the forums were there because they were concerned about public lands and their use.

5.1.4. A Structured Citizen Participation

Meeting Format and Written Response Forms

Can Produce Comprehensive Information about

Natural Resource Management

This assumption has several parts to it that were tested. The first subsection concerns the structured citizen participation meeting format and written response forms as a means of participation available to all citizens. Other means of participation are examined to see whether low participation by minority groups is inherent or was a func­ tion of the techniques chosen for participation. Next, the attendance at the CNF Planning Forums is presented along with the results of the response forms.

In the Community Attitudes Survey (Arizona Institute for

Research, 1974), respondents were asked "Are you active in local govern­ mental affairs?" There is no signficant difference between the answers

98 for the different ethnic groups. They all viewed themselves as inactive significant difference between ethnic groups who had participated in none of the activities listed as opposed to some activity (Table 23).

The difference is also statistically significant between Anglos and the other three groups.

Participating in activities which•influence governmental actions can take several forms and there are significant differences in ethnic group response to the various methods. The forms of partication sur­ veyed in the Tucson Community Attitudes Survey have been divided into four categories on the basis of the skills required, and the amount of effort needed to be expended by the citizen. The categories are:

(1) voting, (2) watching the City Council meetings on television, (3) attending meetings, and (4) contacting elected officials or other publics in order to express an opinion. This is somewhat similar to Verba and

Nie's (1972) division of public participation activities into voting, particularized contacting, communal activities, and campaigning. The survey data being analyzed from the Tucson Community Attitudes Survey is not specific enough in its questions regarding motivation to be able to differentiate particu.larized contacting from concern over communal issues as a reason for contacting an elected official. There is also no infor­ mation regarding campaigning, so the Verba and Nie categories cannot be used for comparison.

Voting patterns have been heavily studied (Verba and Nie, 1972) since voting is a basic political activity. Ethnicity is important in explaining differences in voting (Antunes and Gaitz, 1973; Greeley, 1974).

99

Table 23. . Ethnic group participation in political activities.

Note: Activities is a derived number computed by subtracting the number of respondents who answered no activities from the total number responding to the question. Source:

Community Attitudes Survey done for Tucson, Arizona (Arizona responses is given.

Response

No Activities Activities

Anglo (n = 1154}

Mexican-American (n = 83)

Black (n = 48)

Indian (n = 15)

= 21.44 d.f. =3

30

44

52

27 p = <.05

70

56

48

73

100

There are significant differences in rate of voting between groups in the Tucson study (Table 24). In contrast to other studies

(Greeley, 1974; Antunes and Gaitz, 1973; Williams et al., 1973), Blacks had a lower percentage of their population voting than Anglos. No significant differences in voting rate exist among the minority groups, but differences between minorities and the Anglo population are statis-. tically significant.

Watching the City Council meetings on television does not require much motivation for action; IVhen flipping through the stations at the appropriate time, a citizen can watch what is happening. There were significant differences in the different groups' watching patterns

(Table 25). The differences are also significant between the Anglo rate of watching and that of the three minority groups, as well as between

Mexican-Americans with the lowest percentage watching and the other three groups.

Many citizen participation activities include attending a meeting or forum of some sort. The Tucson study showed no significant differ­ ences between Anglos and the minority groups reporting attendance at forums, planning and zoning meetings, and City Council or County Board of Supervisors meetings. There is a significant difference though in the Model Cities meetings (Table 26). The significant differences are between Anglos and the three minority groups. This is understandable since the Model Cities program concerned mostly poorer sections of

Tucson where many minority people live. To a great extent, the Model

Cities program was for helping minority populations solve problems in their area. These results have shown that where minority citizens have

101

Table 24. Voting by ethnic groups.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source; Community

Group Voted

Anglo Cn = 1154)

Mexican-American (n = 183)

Black (n = 48)

Indian (n = 15)

= 11.52 d.f. =3 p = <.05

50

39

33

40

Table 25. Observation of City Council meetings on television by ethnic group.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Community

Attitudes Survey (Arizona Institute for Research, 1974).

Group Watched

Anglo Cn = 1154)

Mexican-American Cn = 183)

Black (n = 48)

Indian (n = 15)

= 8.94 d.f. =3 p. = .03

42

32

38

53

102

Table 26. Attendance at public meetings by ethnic group.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source: Community

Group

Anglo (n = 1154)

Mexican-American (n = 183)

Blacks (n = 48)

Indians (n = 15)

Model Cities Meetings Attended

3

10

10

7

= 18.44 d.f. =3 p = <.05

105 had a special interest, they did participate and come to meetings, other­ wise they did attend similarly to the Anglos.

.Anther form of influencing policy outcome has been through expressing a vieii^oint either to an elected official or to a larger audience in a letter to a newspaper or circulating a petition [Table 27).

The rate of letter writing to a newspaper is significantly different between Anglos and members of minority groups. This is not surprising especially if there are language problems for the Spanish speaking and

Indian populations. Calling or writing a letter to an elected official shows significant differences between all groups. Differences exist between the various minority groups also at a statistically significant level. This could be a reflection of a writing problem, but also symptomatic of a larger problem, the feeling that the elected official won't pay any attention. The Arizona legislature study data shows significant differences between Anglos and minorities in their rate of contacting state legislators (Table 9).

Looking at the problems of contacting elected officials more closely, there are significant differences between the groups regarding making contact with their state legislator (Table 10). Fifty percent of the Indians said they didn't know how to contact their state legislator.

This is nearly twice the rate of the next group, the Blacks, and is more than six times the percentage of Anglos. Not knowing how to contact a state legislator could indicate not knowing how to contact other govern­ mental officials. No Indians felt contacting a state legislator was

"not necessary." Tiiey either did contact one, felt it did not do any good, or didn't know how. Such an array of responses might well indicate

104

Table 27. Contacting elected officials or the public in order to express an opinion by ethnic group.

Percent distribution of response is given. Source; Community

Did Contact Group

Wrote a Letter to a Newspaper

Anglo (n = 1154)

Mexican American (n = 183)

Black (n = 48)

Indian (n = 15)

= 17.24 d.f. =5 p = <.05

Called or Wrote a Letter to Elected Official

Anglo (n = 1154)

Mexican-American (n = 183)

Black (n = 48)

-

Indian (n = 15)

= 21.28 d.f. =3 p = <.05

Circulated a Petition

Anglo (n = 1154)

Mexican-American (n = 183)

Black (n = 48)

Indian (n = 15)

X^ = 2.58 d.f. =3 p = .460

11

2

6

20

6

4

2

7

8

1

2

7

105 the Indians were not satisfied with what was happening in the legisla­ tive arena or didn't care. Tliis is in contrast with the 18% of the

Mexican-Americans who felt contact was "not necessary." They must have felt satisfied with state government. Most striking though is that 43% of the Mexican-Americans felt it did no good to contact their state legislator. This is a much larger percentage than the other minority groups or even the Anglos. Speculation suggests this is due to a prob­ lem of efficacy.

The Planning Forums drew about 500 people to the 12 different meetings (Table 28). The largest came to the Portal meeting because of a controversy surrounding the management of Cave Creek. Many people who came to that meeting had been camping and birding in the area. The smallest number showed up at Catalina, a suburb of Tucson. It had been chosen as halfway between Oracle and Tucson. It had not been used before and the people who did come said publicity had been poor.

The self-identification survey (Table 20) analyzed for each meeting contains highs and lows that show the range that showed up at each meeting. The meeting compositions reflected quite closely the activity pattern of the surrounding district. For instance, Tucson meetings had few miners and lots of environmentalists. Patagonia had a large number of ranchers and Portal had a large number of birdwatchers.

The people who came well represented the full range of interests. About five people participated in more than one forum.

People participated fully in the meetings. They talked freely of their concerns and problems with present forest management practices and suggested ways to improve management.

106

Table 28. Coronado National Forest Planning Forums: location and attendance.

Location

Douglas

Portal

Willcox

Arivaca

Nogales

Green Valley

Attendance

62

128

28

16

18

14

Location Attendance

Patagonia

Sierra Vista

Catalina

Tucson-- .

32

50

7

Pickett Jr. High 79

Mansfeld Jr. High 36

Safford 28

107

The written comment was composed of 253 response forms and 745 letters.

5.1.5. Forest Service Will Use Public

Comment as a Basis for Issue Statements

The public's comments received from the planning forums, response forms, letters, and public input from the previous two years were ana­ lyzed together.

The 115 uses of the forest mentioned by the public were organ­ ized into broad categories (Figure 8). This information projected the wide range of activities taking place on the CNF. The data on uses from the planning forums were also organized by the number of meetings at which a use was mentioned (Table 29}. This enabled Forest planners to see hov^f widespread certain uses were. Four uses, two amenity (hiking and birdwatching) and two commodity (mining and grazing) were mentioned at all 12 planning forums.

The results of content analysis of public comments regarding an ideal future for the CNF (Figure 9) were used in setting broad goals for forest management. There were conflicting goals mentioned; for instance less grazing and more grazing, and in recreation, new areas and no more new areas. In some areas there was agreement, such as the hope for more and better public education.

The other half of the question concerned forecasting a realis­ tic future for the CNF (Figure 10). Forest quality was viewed as either overpopulated or overused or still beautiful and like the present. Again divergent prophecies were apparent in grazing, woodcutting, land owner­ ship, and Forest Service organization.

108 artifact hunting backpacking biking birdv^^atching boating botanizing (wildflowers) camping collecting (hobbies) commune with nature drinking clean water cool atmosphere/beat the heat escape hatch exploring fall colors fishing four wheel drive on trails group gatherings, family outings hang gliding hiking historical site exploring honeymooning horseback riding hunting (archery and rifle) insect collecting jogging loafing meditation mountain climbing nature collections

RECREATION USES nature study (natural history)

DRV travel packtrips painting photography picnicking prospecting quest for solitude recreation relaxing rock climbing rockhounding scenic drives sex sightseeing skiing (cross-country and dovmhill) sound recording spelunking sunbathing target practice trail rides walking water skiing water tubing, canoeing wildlife calling wildlife nature study wintersports (snowshoeing, sledding)

Figure 8. Results of-content analysis of public comment regarding uses of the Coronado National Forest,

109 agave gathering agriculture beargrass gathering beekeeping

Christmas tree cutting develop natural resources edible plant collection

(cactus fruit, raspberries

3

acorns, pinon, walnut) gravel quarry grazing jojoba gathering mineral assessment (gas and oil)

RESOURCE USES mining movie making multiple use posts and poles ranching (dude) revenue returning activities summer homes

(permit cabins) timber (lumbering) trapping watershed woodcutting (fuelwood gathering) access communication drainage landfill live in forest military use rescue roadbuilding

SPECIAL USES scenic attraction sewage disposal special use permits summer camps tourism water shortage wilderness

ECOSYSTEM USES all resource conservation conservation of water environmental protection natural habitat preservation of grass and trees preservation of land unique habitats wildlife conservation wildlife habitat

Figure 8.--Continued.

arachnids (spider) archeological research educational uses like Scouts entomology historical and cultural

EDUCATIONAL USES history scientific research

(biological, botanical, wildlife) study of life zones

110 clean air cleaning (litter) fire management law enforcement

POLICY USES people capacity poaching public service

Figure 3.--Continued.

Ill

Table 29. Uses of the CNF mentioned by the public at more than six

Planning Forums.

Number of Planning Forums at Which a Use Mentioned

1 2

Number of

Uses Mentioned Uses

1 1

10

hiking birdv'^atching mining grazing camping hunting woodcutting picnicking photography horseback riding fishing backpacking rockhounding quest for solitude recreation watershed education wildlife management scientific research rockclimbing skiing timber trapping

112

Access; more, better, less, controlled, public transportation.

Fire, more prescribed, natural, better protection, stricter control.

Forest appearance; same as now, fewer people, as 50 years ago.

Forest Service management; recognize other than grazing, limits to use, better distribution of people, more signs, fewer signs, more garbage cans, less control from Congress, more trained people in the field, better funding.

Grazing; continue, more grass, no cattle, less, more, cattle out of recreation areas, enforce range management, no overgrazing.

Land ownership; acquire more, return forest land to private, better surveying, compatible zoning.

Law enforcement; better, more, less restrictions, more restrictions, stiffer penalties, control dogs.

Litter, less.

Mining; none, better regulations, acquire claims, continued, limited, less, repeal of mining laws, rehabilitate land after mining.

Multiple use; continue, correct problems, rotate land use, better management.

People; fewer, more control, more cooperation.

Public education/information/involve; more, better, continue, increase.

Recreation; more campgrounds and picnic areas, better, RV campgrounds, new areas, more small areas, dispersed, fewer areas, no more new ones.

Resource preservation/restoration/enhancement; more erosion control, less destruction, preserve quality of experience, lush and green, no exotic plants and animals, protect native flora and fauna, less exploitation, reforestation.

Speical uses; each user group pay own way, continue summer homes, eli­ minate summer homes, limit or eliminate powerline and electronic towers.

Trails; more better marked, better managed, improve, limit new, better nature trails, more horseback trails.

Vehicles/ORV; none, fewer, more control, restrict use, more designated

ORV use, more closed areas.

Water; control pollution, more developments, no more dams, more lakes and dams, better maintenance of lakes, study availability, watershed potential stressed.

Figure 9. Results of content analysis of public comment regarding an ideal future for the Coronado National Forest.

113

Wilderness; more, expand, educate users, maintain limit development, reservation system.

Wildlife; more animals, managed at peak capacity, more protection, forest managed to benefit wildlife, protect and improve habitat, controlled trapping, no trapping, fewer hunters, continue hunting, controlled hunting, no poaching, better Game and Fish law enforce­ ment, harmony wildlifers and ranchers, favor native species. Cave

Creek a Wildlife Management area and South Fork a National

Zoological Area.

Wood/timber; maximum utilization, more selective cutting, clean-up cutting areas, better management, preserve timber, more personal fuelwood use, protect bottom lands, clean-up deadwood, discourage fuelwood gathering.

Figure 9.--Continued.

114

Access; more, larger, more use, less accessible, more problems, more

ORV destruction.

Education, public relations/public involvement; greater need, more staff, more interpretation, won't be allowed to have public meetings.

Fire; more man-caused, prevention, greater danger.

Forest Service; more Congressional control, control local management, too much control, overmanaged, over controlled, more law enforcement, restrictions, regulations, more bureaucracy, more expensive, more money for'management, insufficient staff, management and decision less responsive, higher, more user fees, consolidation of land management agencies, more cooperation.

Land ownership; reduction in F.S. acreage, civilization encroachment on

Forest, no private land inholding, more inholdings, less National

Forest lands.

Forest quality; overpopulated, crowded, gradual destruction, overexploited, overused, polluted, degraded, wet areas disappear, decline in solitude, still beautiful, quality remain or increase, improved, between ideal and worst, like present.

Grazing; overgrazed, less overgrazing, controlled, no grazing, less, more, few ranchers.

Mining; increased, mountain leveled, more restoration.

Multiple use; limited, remains, will not remain, less, increased.

People; less appreciative, more appreciative, more accidents, less pri­ vacy, more conflicts, retired people take over, fewer can use, too many environmentalists, permittees will save the forest, majority rule.

Resource preservation/restoration; conserve natural resources, erosion continues, less resources available, climate drier, unbalanced eco­ system, less archeological sites, remain the same, solid development around the forest, more litter.

Recreation; controlled entry, permits, reservations, increased use and demands, developed and underdeveloped, less use of forest, more facilities, paved, increased use of Huachuchas and Catalinas rela­ tive to other ranges, more public transportation systems like Sabino tram, restricted, segregated, compartmentalized areas.

Special permits; more, less, phase-out summer homes, sacrifice to energy, more commercial use.

Wildlife; less, more damage to animals, none, more, less hunting and fishing, extinction or increased pressure on species, more variety of habitat, destruction of habitat.

Figure 10. Results of content analysis of public comment regarding a realistic future for the Coronado National Forest.

115

Wilderness; more, none left, usurped by other uses, encroachment.

Water; shortage, deterioration of stream and watershed, water will go to city, more developments, more pollution, water rights.

Woodcutting/timber; less, commercial harvest, less use of timber, increased cutting, no fuelwood cutting, less available, some, overcutting, more control.

Figure 10.--Continued.

116

Figure 11 contains the topics mentioned by the public as issues.

Under each topic are a wide range of viewpoints from the extremes of

"develop" to "preserve." The topics present a spectrum of problems concerning management of individual resources, agency management, and philosophical orientations. The topics and their supporting viewpoints were synthesized into a preliminary list of issue statements.

The Forest Service decision-making group had the preliminary issue statements as well as a complete content analysis packet when they met to decide on the issues for planning. They first established deci­ sion criteria and then applied them to the prsliminary issues. About

30 issues were assigned to land management planning and about 20 to other categories (Figure 12).

Using a screening process, issues were judged as to whether they were relevant to the Forest Service or not and if so whether at a national, regional or local level. Those issue statements that could be solved at a local level were further analyzed to determine if they were concerned with land allocation questions, operational problems, and/or goals. An issue statement became part of land management plan­ ning if it concerned land allocation.

5.1.6. As Part of the Ongoing Dialogue with

Its Constituency, the Forest Service Will

Provide Feedback Regarding Public Comment

Tliirty-five hundred copies of Forest Feedback were sent to individuals on mailing list and to planning forum participants and were placed in Forest Service offices for the public to take.

access, roads, and trails campground, developed, primitive carrying capacity

Cave Creek closure of areas to people commercial development conservation cultural an d historic ecology/natural resources economics fees fires forest service decision-making forest service management forest service personnel future needs of public and grandchildren grazing hunting-trapping improved roads vs. primitive interagency conflict land ownership law enforcement mining multiple use noncitizen use people as visitors permits, permittees planning public information, public relations, education recreation rights

Sabino Canyon scientific values special uses threatened and endangered species timber/fuelwood trail standards unique zoological areas vehicles, ORV vehicular access water wilderness (RARE II] wildlife

Figure 11. Results of content analysis of public comment by topic only of issues on the Coronado National Forest.

118

I. Land Management Plan

Fire; the issue is, how much and what kind of (prescribed, man-caused, natural) fire should be allowed to burn, where, at what time of year, intensity, and how much private property development protec­ tion should be provided.

Water; the issue is, how the water produced on the Forest will be used.

Carrying capacity; the issue is, the need to establish carrying capaci­ ties (the number of people who can use an area while still protect­ ing natural resources) and where they must be enforced.

Range; the issue is, how much and where should Forest land be allocated for grazing and what relation does this bear to other uses (con­ flict between grazing and recreation), etc. The issue is, the allo­ cation of forage between grazing and wildlife.

Special areas; the issue is, where and how many utility corridors, com­ mercial developments, access to inholdings, summer homes, and apiary sites, etc., should there be.

The issue is, what areas should be designated as cultural and historic sites.

The issue is, the allocation of areas on the CNF for research or modi­ fication of management policies to enhance scientific research values

Vegetation; the issue is, where and how much vegetation manipulation should be done on the Coronado National Forest.

The issue is, how to allocate uses in riparian areas (e.g., fencing, grazing systems).

Law enforcement; the issue is, how much regulation and law enforcement and where.

Wilderness; the issue is, how much wilderness and where it should be

(after RARE II).

The issue is, the difference in intensity of management in the differ­ ent wilderness areas regarding recreation, wildlife, resources, grazing, and fire management policies.

Recreation; the issue is, vvhere are the caves and to what kinds of uses should they be allocated and how can they be managed (recreation, scientific, wilderness).

The issue is, where and how much land should be allocated for developed recreation (picnic/campgrounds) and which lands should remain undeveloped for dispersed recreation.

The issue is, where to provide for visual resource integrity.

Forest products; the issue is, to whom (citizen/noncitizen) and what type of (personal/commercial) forest products permits should be issued.

Figure 12. First list of issues adopted for CNF land managment plan and other plans.

119

Forest products (continued]

The issue is, which harvest techniques/siIvicultural systems for wood

(timber and fuelwood) should be used on the Coronado National Forest

The issue is, how much, where, and for what objectives should timber be harvested in the Forest.

The issue is, should Christmas tree sales be made and where.

Roads and trails; the issue is, the level of road and trail maintenance and standard for new roads and trails, where and how many (including signs).

The issue is, how to resolve the conflicts between trail users

(hikers, horseback, motorcycles).

The issue is, what kind of and how much public access to special use areas.

The issue is, adequate (for peak periods of use), legal, public access to and within the Forest that is environmentally acceptable and safe

(roads, trails, stock tank maintenance, fuelwood cutting, birdwatching, hunting, etc.).

Land ownership; the issue is, where and what kinds of land (private, state, etc.) should be acquired within the National Forest boundaries and which lands should be exchanged out of the National Forest System.

Wildlife; the issue is, a question of allocation of time and effort to threatened species in relation to other flora and fauna.

The issue is, should other uses (mineral entry, recreation, etc.) be controlled in critical wildlife habitats.

The issue is, should Cave Creek be designated as a National Zoological

Area or a wildlife management area, and how other uses should be integrated in the decision, or should it remain unclassified.

The issue is, how much and where should wildlife resources and habitat be maintained for future generations; which species (beargrass habi­ tat - javelina).

The issue is, where and how many areas should be designated as unique and critical wildlife habitats, research natural areas, and how they are to be ma:naged.

The issue is, how much, where, and why predator and rodent control should happen.

II. Issues to be handled in other ways.

Study Plan for the Forest Land Management Plan

The issue is, the confusion resulting from overlapping jurisdictions and authorities with different regulations and laws and different goals and objectives.

The issue is, how to define the values of noncommodity resources, such as visul resources, recreation, and wildlife (in economic terms.

Figure 12. -Continued.

120

Program/project analysis

The issue is whether or not to use herbicides.

Current budgeting

The-issue is, what priority should be given to closing mine shafts

Law Enforcement Plan

The issue is, uniform and consistent law and regulation enforcement in the Coronado National Forest.

Inform and Involve Program

The issue is, people frustration faced with multiple requirements for permits from different levels of government.

The issue is, the amount and how basic environmental education is to be done within the Coronado National Forest and by the Forest

Service.

• The issue is, the lack of information about the effects of fire

(wildlife, vegetation, the environment).

The issue is, how to improve communication between the Forest

Service and Forest users.

Goals and Objectives in the Forest Land Management Plan

The issue is, that people don't know what the Forest Service is doing and why, and they want to be informed.

The issue is, whether or not consumptive use of renewable resources is done in an environmentally sound fashion.

The issue is, how much of different uses should be produced, where, and how it will affect the quality of the Forest in the future.

The issue is, the amount of preservation that the Forest Service practices in its conservation (wise use) of natural resources.

The issue is, the weight of input from the vested interests in land management decisions in relation to the weight of the input from nonvested interests (and vice versa).

The issue is, how to coordinate interagency cooperation in Cave

Creek (trapping, lake development, etc.).

The issue is, how to give wildlife resources equal weight with other resources in land management planning and Forest Service decision making.

Would require legislative change

The issue is, the destructive mining practices as a result of the

1872 mining law.

The issue is, what fees should be charged for recreational use.

Figure 12.--Continued.

121

Nineteen Forest Feedback coupons were returned. Most of them reiterated earlier stated positions, but two brought forth problems that had been summarized out of the issue statements; litter and water pollu­ tion. The Arizona State Fish and Wildlife Department also raised a number of issues concerning wildlife policy such as reintroduction of extinct species. These materials were subsequently presented to the interdisciplinary group that was working on issue strategies and a revised list of issues was recommended to the decision-making group.

The Forest Supervisor and District Rangers agreed to the revisions.

The new list of issues has been used to drive the planning process

(Figure 13). The revised issue list was again sent out to the public in a subsequent issue of the Forest Feedback. No comments, though requested by the CNF, \<iere received from the public concerning the' revised issue list.

122

I. Land Management Plan

Fire; the issue is, hovvr much and what kind of (prescribed, man-caused, natural) fire should be allowed to burn, where, at what time of year, intensity, and how much private property development protec­ tion should be provided.

Water; the issue is, how the water produced on the Forest will be used.

*The issue is, how should streams be classified for use which implies the water quality standards they have to meet.

Carrying capacity; the issue is, the need to establish carrying capaci­ tecting natural resources) and where they must be enforced.

Range; the issue is, how much and where should Forest land be allocated for grazing and what relation does this bear to other uses (con­ flict between grazing and recreation), etc.

The issue is the allocation of forage between grazing and wildlife.

Special areas; The issue is, where and how many utility corridors, com­ mercial developments, access to inholdings, summer homes, and apiary sites, etc., should there be.

*The issue is what archeological and historical sites should be nomi­ nated to the National Register of Historic Places.

*The issue is, to what degree would archeological, historical sites be interpreted to the public.

The issue is, the allocation of ares on the Coronado National Forest for research or modification of management policies to enhance the scientific research values.

Vegetation; the issue is, where and how much vegetation manipulation should be done on the CNF.

This issue is, how to allocate uses in riparian areas (e.g. fencing, grazing systems).

*Law enforcement; the issue is, how much regulation and where.

Wilderness; the issue is, how much wilderness and where should it be

(after RARE II).

The issue is, the difference in intensity of management in the differ­ and fire management policies

Figure 13. Revised list of issues adopted for the CNF land management plan and other plans.

*indicates item added or changed from first list (Fig. 12).

123

Recreation; the issue is, where are the caves and to what kinds of uses should they be allocated and how can they be managed (recreation, scientific, wilderness).

The issue is, where and how much land should be allocated for developed recreation (picnic/campgrounds) and which lands should remain undeveloped for dispersed recreation.

The issue is, where to provide for visual resource integrity.

*The issue is, should the present ORV plan be revised, and how.

.Forest products; the issue is, to whom (citizen, noncitizen) and what type of (personal/commercial) forest products permits should be issued.

The issue is, which harvest techniques/siIvicultural systems for wood

(timber and fuelwood) should be used on the Coronado National Forest

(clear cut, snag policy, reforestation, green/dead wood).

The issue is, how much, where, and for what objective should timber be harvested in the Forest.

The issue is, should Christmas tree sale'', be made and where.

Roads and trails; the issue is, the level of road and trail maintenance and standard for new roads and trails; where and how many (including signs).

The issue is, how to resolve the conflicts between trail users (hikers, horseback, motorcycles).

The issue is, what kind of and how much public access to special use areas.

The issue is, adequate (for peak periods of use), legal, public access to and within the Forest that is environmentally acceptable and safe

(roads, trails, stock tank maintenance, fuelwood cutting, birdwatching, hunting, etc.).

Landownership; the issue is, where and what kinds of land (private, state, etc.) should be acquired within the National Forest boundaries and which lands should be exchanged out of the National Forest System.

Wildlife; the issue is, a question of allocation of time and effort to threatened species in relation to other flora and fauna.

The issue is, should other uses (mineral entry, recreation, etc.) be controlled in critical wildlife habitats.

The issue is, should Cave Creek be designated as a National Zoological

Area or a wildlife management area, and how other uses should be integrated in the decision, or should it remain unclassified.

The issue is, where and how many fishing lakes should be in the

Coronado National Forest.

The issue is, how much and where should wildlife resources and habitat be maintained for future generations; which species (beargrass habitat - javelina).

Figure 15.--Continued.

*indicates item added or changed from first list (Fig. 12).

124

Wildlife (continued)

The issue is, where and how many areas should be designated as unique and critical wildlife habitats, research natural areas, and hov\f they are to be managed.

The issue is, how much, where, and why predator and rodent control should happen.

*The issue is, should we reintroduce native wildlife and/or plant species into suitable and/or historical habitats (includes threatened and endangered species).

*The issue is, whether or not to use non-native species in revegetation.

*Minerals and Soils; the issue is, under what circumstances should an area be withdra™ from mineral entry.

The issue is, how much and where accelerated erosion should be tolerated.

II. Issues to be handled in other ways.

Law Enforcement Plan

The issue is, uniform and consistent law and regulation enforcement in the Coronado National Forest.

*The issue is, how much and what kind of law enforcement.

*indicates item added or changed from first list (Pig- 12)

CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS

The aim of this chapter is to analyze the results of testing the assumptions described in earlier chapters.

T

vto

main themes emerge; the first is that while Anglos participated in the CNF public involvement process, the ethnic minorities did not take part. Some possible explana­ tions are explored. The second theme is that the CNF personnel used the public input to formulate issue statements that were used as a basis for planning. There follows a section that examines the role of citizen participation in decision-making. As a framework for the argument,

Kaufman's (1968, p. 72) three core values are described, followed by an explanation of his (1978, p. 442) three ways to increase representative­ ness. However, these methods have not removed the discrepancies between citizen expectations of their role in policy formation and the amount of power agencies have been willing to share. The theory of policy forma­ tion is examined, leading to an exposition of the way in which different styles of decision-making imply specific citizen involvement techniques.

This is important since NFMA, an example of interest group liberalism legislation, has required citizen participation in planning, but has not offered any guidance to the Forest Service as to what role the partici­ pation should play. A summary concludes the chapter.

125

126

6.1. An Analysis of Possible Explanations as to IVhy

Anglos Participated and Ethnic Minorities Did Mot

As the results show, ethnic minority groups did not respond to the invitation to be on the CNF mailing list and did not come to the

Planning Forums. There are a number of possible reasons for this:

(1) minorities did not feel comfortable participating in meetings; (2) written responses were an inappropriate format for participation;

(3) minorities had insufficient information; (4) they possessed a low sense of efficacy; [5) they were not interested in natural resource problems; and (6) they preferred no control on land use. Each of these plausible reasons for minority nonparticipation will be explored.

6.1.1. Meetings

Greeley(1974, p. 181) in "Political Participation among .^erican

Ethnic Groups" notes that voting is an especially Catholic mode of partic­ ipation while communal participation is an especially Protestant form.

Greely also found that ethnicity is a relatively important predictor of political behavior, stronger than religion, region, and occupation for predicting voting, civic activity, campaigning, and particularized con­ tact. While in general education is only slightly correlated with par­ ticularized contacting, such correlation is substantially higher for

Spanish-speaking Catholics [Greeley,1974, p. 194). Since Mexican-

Americans are primarily Catholic, it is possible that they did not come to the CNF Planning Forums because they are a form of communal partici­ pation. However, results presented in Tables 23, 24, and 25 on activi­ ties in Tucson showed there were no statistically significant differences between the frequency of participation of ethnic groups and the format

127 of participation except in the case of Model Cities meetings. Tlae

Mexican-Americans would go to the meetings if the topic concerned their neighborhood, as was the case in the Model Cities meetings. Blacks fol­ low the same pattern. So the use of meetings should not hinder Mexican-

American and Black participants per se.

6.1.2. Written Response Forms

A written response form was a participation technique not fre­ quently used by Blacks and Mexican-Americans. Results presented in

Table 27 showed statistically significant differences between ethnic groups in the frequency with which they wrote letters to either news­ papers or elected officials. Indians surveyed were found to write more letters to both newspapers and elected officials than did Blacks or

Mexican-Americans. The Indian and Black sample was very small, and may not reflect the true picture. However, the Mexican-American sample was larger and did appear to reflect the fact that a written response form was not a good way to obtain comments from this ethnic group.

6.1.3. Lack of Information

If citizens do not know about the opportunity to participate in the decision making forums, they cannot take part. Citizens were in­ formed about the opportunity to participate in the CNF Planning Forums via electronic and print media as well as by letter, invitation, and poster. There is no compelling reason to think information regarding the opportunities for participation did not reach ethnic minorities equally with others through public media channels. Though there was no direct information on forest service planning, the data regarding hearing

128 about planning in Tucson (Table 6) showed that there were significant differences in ethnic group response only for "newspapers" and "survey in water bills." Looking more closely at the response pattern for

"newspapers," it appears that it is the responses from the Indians that renders the differences significant. Therefore, Mexican-Americans,

Anglos and E.acks had equal access to information about planning via newspapers. The percentage response to "survey in water bills" is so small it can be disregarded.

The mailing list (the Anglo's most frequently mentioned source of information about the meetings. Table 5), was not successful in reaching Mexican-Americans, Blacks or Indians. None of their organiza­ tions responded to the invitation to be on the mailing list, and so did not receive the invitation to the Forums. It also meant that their mem­ bership lists were not available and their members were not solicited.

The one Mexican-American who received an invitation was a Forest Service permittee who was automatically on the mailing li'st and was sent an invitation. The absence of ethnic minority groups on the CNF mailing list meant they were not individually invited.

6.1.4. Efficacy

Perhaps more fundamental than techniques for participation or receiving information about opportunities to participate is a sense of efficacy. A person would probably ask himself or herself, "If it does not make any difference in the outcome of a decision, why should I take the time and energy to participate?" Motivation for involvement comes from a feeling of having a stake in the outcome and a sense of efficacy.

129

In the Urban Observatory work (Steggert, 1975) efficacy was found to be related significantly to both social class and race and to membership in an organization. Upper class citizens were more likely to see their political efforts as potentially effective. IVhites were generally more likely than Blacks to see their political efforts as effective (Table 8).

Compared to Anglos, more Mexican-Americans and more Blacks felt it "did no good" to contact their state legislators (Table 11). A response of "does no good" means that state legislators would not change their views as a result of the contact; therefore, the respondents per­ ceived themselves to have little or no influence. Indians had a much lower percentage of their responses in the category of "does no good."

Mexican-Americans and Blacks had a lower sense of efficacy than Indians and Anglos.

However, in asking directly about their feelings of influence on state legislators (Table 15), Indians and Mexican-Americans had the largest percentage answering "lots" compared to Blacks and Anglos. In contrasting "lots" and "some" to "very little" and "none," Indians have a strong sense of influence compared to Mexican-Americans, Blacks, and

Anglos. The results appear to be more complicated. For instance, of the Mexican-Americans who did not contact a state legislator because

"it does no good," a quarter felt they had "lots" and "some" influence.

Further investigation of these results is beyond the scope of this study, but could provide interesting insight into "perceived" influence

(those who did not contact state legislators) and "tested" influence

(those who did contact state legislators).

130

Grebler et al. (1970, p. 567) found the level of efficacy quite

lou

for Mexican-Americans. Responses to attitudinal questions revealed that 80 percent of survey respondents in both Los Angeles and San Antonio agreed that "voting decides what happens." On the other hand, an about equally large majority felt that "politics was too complicated" and presumably to be avoided (79% in San Antonio and 75% in Los Angeles).

In Los Angeles, 55% of the respondents felt that people like themselves had a great deal to say, and 35% expressed a negative view. In San

Antonio, only 44% gave a positive answer, and 40% were negative. Grebler et al. (1970) interpreted the results to mean that the Mexican-Americans' confidence in their ability to influence political affairs, which was so much lower in San Antonio, was related, in all probability, to their greater social isolation as well as procedural obstacles to political participation.

Another way to look at efficacy of an individual is to look at groups with which the individual closely identifies and then to see which groups are perceived to have the most influence in the political situa­ tion. If a person feels close to a group which the same person feels has little influence, one could suggest the individual has a low level of efficacy. However, it could also be an accurate assessment of the group's status and power. Results presented in Tables 12 through 16 confirm that different ethnic groups identify with different interest groups and perceive these interest groups to have differing amounts of influence. Of interest to natural resource policymaking is the one lone

Mexican-American who identified with environmentalists (Table 12). On the whole, ethnic minorities identified with interest groups which they

151 perceived to have "too little" to "no" influence. Efficacy measured in this fashion appears to be low for ethnic minorities. Antunes and Gaitz

(1974, pp. 1206-7) found that their speculation regarding the relation­ ship of participation and perceived social distance was a spurious one resulting from a prior relationship of ethnicity with both participation and perceived social distance. One could speculate that efficacy was also related to perceived social distance from political leaders and bureaucratic decision-makers. However, like participation, the relation­ ship is probably a spurious one resulting from a prior relationship of ethnicity with both efficacy and perceived social distance.

6.1.5. Not Interested in Natural

Resource Problems

In a multicultural society, such as that of the southwest, inclu­ sion of minority views can clearly increase the overall range of view­ points. Surveys of concerns about natural resources revealed significant differences in attitudes about natural resource problems, environmental values, and priorities. Concern about a problem is here measured by willingness to expend governmental monies on the problem.

Differences in minority views from Anglo perspectives exist and are explicable in terms of a specific group's interest. Self interest brings forth strong feelings. In the case of strip mining on an Indian reservation, for example, the Indians had strong feelings about the problem.

Statements regarding environmental values (Table 18) often brought a stronger "not sure" response from minorities than Anglos except for the statement regarding the Central Arizona Project. More

132

Indians were in agreement with completion of the project than are other groups. Minority groups apparently do have a distinct vievvrpoint to add.

IVhile an ethnic minority might not object to spending money on a specific natural resource problem (Table 20), the same minority con­ fronted by tradeoffs in spending money among programs of welfare, educa­ tion, and pollution control showed very little interes in natural resource problems. For example, no Blacks felt pollution control was among the three priorities for more money, and about a quarter of the sample of Blacks recommended it for less spending.

6.1.6. Land Use Planning

Concerning land management planning, the ethnic minorities leaned toward "no planning" or "control and limited planning" (Table 19}.

If individuals do not believe in land use planning and setting strict controls on land use, most likely they will not have an interest in a land use planning process.

Creighton (1976, p. 6) in a speech entitled "The limitations and to the socioeconomic model for predicting participation, that no one takes part in a citizen participation process unless he perceives him­ self as having a direct stake in the outcome of the resulting decision.

The citizen's stake may not be limited to economic self interest, or to his interest as, say, a recreation user. It might very well be a stake in "the way things ought to be."

In summary, then, it appears that ethnic minorities are not interested in Forest Service natural resources or land management

133 planning issues. Evidence suggests that the meeting format did not inhibit their participation, although the written response form may have done so. Evidence concerning efficacy is not clear, although, in general, efficacy appears to be low. Minority groups' lack of response to the invitation to be on the mailing list put them at a disadvantage, but other channels of communication used suggested that they had the oppor­ tunity to leam about the CNF Planning Forums. It seems that when

Blacks, Mexican-Americans or Indians feel they are directly affected, they will participate. Their lack of participation in this case sug­ gests that they did not perceive that they would be directly affected by Forest Service land management planning.

6.2. Forest Service Used Public Comments to Write Issue Statements ivTiich Formed the Basis for Planning

Each step of the process the Forest Service used to collect the many public comments and synthesize them into issue statements will be analyzed in this section. First, there were the many sources from which to collect data. Public comments, both written and oral, could be ana­ lyzed by content analysis, CODEINVOLVE or computer programs. Advantages and disadvantages of each system will be discussed. IVhen synthesized comments were presented to the decision-makers, they desired to know hovv well the sample of respondents represented the surrounding socio­ political environment before they used the material. The compiled public comment had several roles in Forest Service planning and manage­ ment. Feedback to the public regarding agency use of public input helped fight public skepticism of Forest Service behavior. Finally, revision

134 of issue statements (in response to individual and agency comment) came not as a result of "votes," i.e., a large number of letters, but as a result of reasonable suggestions and agency willingness to change.

6.2.1. Sources

Public comments were collected from many sources besides plan­ ning forums and letters. Content analysis of meetings and letters from the past two years, newspaper articles and magazine articles, television and radio programs were some of the other avenues used to obtain public input.

6.2.2. Comment Analysis

The analysis of comments was aimed at finding the breadth of views and was not a vote counting exercise. Each individual's statement was treated as a valid opinion and included in the overall information used to write issue statements. Three major ways to analyze written comments and planning forum notes will be discussed: content analysis,

Content analysis allows use, to some extent, of subjective judg­ ments in deciding the important comments. This does allow room for bias.

With a large number of comments and many people involved in the analysis, individual bias is diluted though there is still opportunity for agency bias. In the process at CNF, a non-Forest Service volunteer worked along with the Forest Service personnel in making the content analysis.

It was beneficial for both the volunteer, who saw the effort and time put into analyzing the public conmients, and beneficial for the Forest

Service in getting help and outside opinion.

135

CODEINVOLVE is another method to analyze public opinion that decodes public comment into preset categories. A key-word card is made for each input and in the hand-tabulated version, holes are punched corresponding to the comments made. Then, using a needle, various comments can be sorted out and looked at as groups. The process can be computerized. Pre-reading of comments is required in order to know how to set up the cards. It smacks of counting votes instead of looking at all comments to see the breadth of concern. Computerization has replaced the use of key sort cards since once comments are coded, it is easy to put them on a computer and have the computer do the sorting and compile statistics.

There are some linear programs and computerized approaches to gathering public opinion. Some of them use preset issues that the pub­ lic is asked to rank order. These are then compiled to get a sense of what people see as the most important issues, what kinds of management would make the least number of people very unhappy, and which options would make the largest number of people happy. A major problem with this approach is that it uses preset issues. A preliminary testing, or citizen participation process, could be used to generate the issues, so that nonagency issues would be present along with agency concerns. This method is good for looking at tradeoffs, but is not as valuable in gen­ erating issues overall.

Computerized approaches to citizen participation tend to be vote counting procedures. This is not surprising since computers are good at counting things and since in the legislative branch of government deci­ sions are made by vote. Vote counting is a theoretical problem discussed

later in this chapter. However, vote counting was not the intent of

136 the CNF citizen participation process. Rather, the participation pro­ cess was to indicate the breadth of values.

Vote counting can also mislead the public regarding the public role in making a decision. The CNF made it clear in the workshop pro­ cess that decisions would be made by the Forest Supervisor and District

Rangers. Public comment would be used, but decisions on which issues to include would be made by Forest Service personnel.

6.2.3. Representativeness

There is always a question about whether information collected is representative of the total population or representative of the politically active or attentive public. For an accurate picture of the total population, a stastically accurate sample of the population could, in principle, be dram and surveyed. (There are, of course, the earlier mentioned problems for a federal agency to make a survey; so surveys are essentially rule out.) It is possible to determine with a good deal of accuracy a picture of the values of the entire population. However, in the political context the relevant group is composed of the attentive public and the "potential public," that is, those who, while not yet active, may become active. In the political situation, it is those individuals who register and vote that determine how the country is run.

In the same light, it is those people who come to meetings, make written comments, and follow the debate, who influence the outcome of natural resource decision-making. In the case of the CNF, ethnic minorities, by and large, did not participate.

137

Many large national businesses and organization do not exert in­ fluence at the local level, but wait until regional or national approval is required. However, at the Planning Forums, representatives of large mining companies and some of the national environmental groups were pres­ ent. Their influence was noted at the local level. IVhat influence will be exerted at the regional and national level is yet to be felt.

Other issues and concerns some from various federal, state, and local governmental agencies. They were invited to the Planning Forums with a response form. Some governmental officials showed up, but most expressed their concerns by telephone conversations with their contacts in the Forest Service. Such actions are hard to document and usually do not show up in reports.

6.2.4. Use of Public Comment

The information collected from the Planning Forums and the written comments were very useful to the Forest Service, both immediately for management, and also throughout the planning process. The agency was able to use some of the information immediately to make repairs and improve situations brought to their attention. The concerns and issue identification were used as the basis for writing issue statements for the planning process, which were then used to see what information had to be gathered to assess the present management situation.

Alternative plans for managing the Forest resolved the conflict­ ing issues in different mixes of outputs and were formed around the clusters of values expressed by citizens. Alternatives were evaluated as to their effects on biological, physical, social, and economic systems.

138

Criteria for deciding which o£ the plans was to be adopted stemmed also from public concerns. The results of public comment were used in every step of the planning process. The public had provided the values and issues to which an agency could then respond with its technical expertise.

Issue statements were written in the publics' om words to the greatest extent possible. For example, many individuals were concerned about the impact of mining exploration on Forest lands. The issue state­ ment was written to express citizen concern: "The issue is, the destruc­ tive practices of the 1862 mining law." (See Figure 12.) An agency statement would, in all probability, never include the word destructive.

In the case of the CNF, the Forest Service personnel already knew about most or all of the issues before the process began, but per­ haps they did not realize the public was also concerned about those same items. The process confirmed intuition and changed the relative impor­ tance of different issues.

6.2.5. Feedback to the Public

The public frequently expressed skepticism that the Forest Ser­ vice would do anything with their comments. The Forest Feedback listing of issues was designed to put aside the public's fears, so that citizens who had taken time and made the effort to participate would know the results of their actions. Reporting to the citizen what happened to their efforts was an important part of the public involvement process.

To complete the feedback loop, the citizens needed a way to comment as to whether the issues as stated reflected their concerns or whether something had been left out. The coupon in the Forest Feedback met that

need and was used. The Forest Service responded in turn

b y

revising

139 issues as needed to respond to the public.

6.2.6. Issue Statement Revision

Revision of the CNF issue statements (Figure 13) occurred not because of a public outcry, but because the public and other agency suggestions were reasonable. There was, for example, no issue statement on water quality. One was added after the ommission was pointed out by a citizen. The problem of litter was difficult to deal with in the decision format. It was obviously a problem on the National Forest lands, but many Forest Service staff felt it was not a land management issue. It was, in their minds, a budget matter, related to how much money to spend on litter removal. Since budgets reflect an agency's priority of problems to solve, there was a discrepancy between levels of effort for litter removal desired by the public and delivered by the

Forest Service. The decision was made to treat litter as a budget problem, probably meaning nothing will change.

6.3. The Role of Citizen Participation in Natural Resoui'ce Decision-making

Citizen participation is one way to overcome public skepticism of the Forest Service as an agency. Actually, public skepticism of the

Forest Service is indicative of a much broader problem, a feeling of lack of representation in bureaucracies in general. The feeling is heightened as bureaucracies play an increasingly larger role in each person's life and take a more obvious role in policy formation, a func­ tion previously monopolized by the legislative branch of government.

140

In order to discuss the situation, it is necessary to look at bureaucracies and how they function. Kaufman's C1968) three core values of bureaucracy will be used as the framework, followed by his three suggested ways to increase representation in an agency.

Tliough Congress had ordered citizen involvement in policy forma­ tion by agencies (for example, NFMA and the Forest Service), there is a wide discrepancy betv\reen citizen and agency expectations of what the public's role in policy formation will be. An examination of policy formation, the different styles of decision-making, and what they imply for citizen input techniques follows, with NFNiA used as an example.

6.3.1. Bureaucracies

In a bureaucracy such as the Forest Service, Kaufman (1968, p.

72) states that there are three core values, (1) representativeness,

(2)

neutral competency, and (3) executive leadership, which underlie the dynamics of a bureaucracy. At different times, one or another of these values has been dominant.

The first value was a quest for representativeness on the part of bureaucracy. Legislatures were seen as the champions of the public.

A large number of official positions were filled by election, resulting in long ballots. There was an extension of the voting franchise to nonproperty holding males, to blacks, and then to women. An uncritical faith in the electoral principle did not lead to efficiency in admini­ stering government or increase representativeness. Instead, it seemed to confuse voters and interest groups.

141

The rallying cry, "take administration out of politics," was a signal of the search for neutral competence, and led to the tradition that legislatures set policy and bui-eaucracies administered laws. Mecha­ nisms such as independent boards, commissions, and merit systems were designed to insulate public officials and public policies from political pressure. The development of "self-directing" groups of professionals their

oto

sources of support among professional societies and organiza­ tions concerned with the subject matter. Such groups become independent sources of decision-making power. However, the proliferation of boards and independent bodies meant inefficiency due to overlapping jurisdic­ tions and contradictory policies.

A movement for administrative reorganization sought to enhance executive leadership in the bureaucracy. Discussion of "direct lines of responsibility" and elimination of overlap and duplication led to con­ solidation of agencies into a relatively few departments headed by officials appointed to the chief elected officer of the executive branch of the government. The sharp cleavage between politics and administra­ tion became an impediment to the justification of executive leadership and gradually the dichotomy of policy formation and administration fell out of favor. IVhat was better suited to the aims of executive leader­ ship was a process of policy formulation as a part of administration, which began to replace the politics/administration dichotomy.

There is never total ascendance of one value over another, only a story of changing balance among the three core values. The United

States government provides many opportunities for representativeness.

142

Many public offices are elective and legislatures retain immense powers.

Political parties attempt to represent wide-based constituencies.

Interest groups are numerous and vocal in their demands. Administrative agencies incorporate numerous procedures for representation into their decision-making processes, including public hearings and advisory boards

(Kaufman, 1978, p. 440). However, there is public dissatisfaction because programs do not seem to deliver as promised.

6.3.2. Increasing Representativeness in a Bureaucracy

Kaufman (1978, p. 442) suggested three \iays to increase repre­ sentativeness in bureaucratic decision-making; (1) to have more friends in strategic places, (2) to appoint ombudspersons, and (3) to institute decentralization with citizen participation.

Placing a friend as a spokesman for various interest affected by decisions in a strategic position within an agency is a traditional way of making a bureaucracy more responsive. A bureaucracy after all is simply a group of people arranged in "a monocratic authority structure by the elaborate articulation and recording of decision rules to guide subordinate officials in all their activity by the making of personnel decisions on a strict merit basis and by the total dependence of each official upon his job for his social status and livelihood" (Altshuler,

1968, p. 3). Bureaucracies are staffed by civil service employees and at the top positions by political appointees of the president. IVho these people are is a matter of importance since they are making policy decisions.

143

The Civil Service was set up to place governmental personnel on the basis of competency, i.e., examinations, not political influence.

The recruitment process has brought into federal employment a cross sec­ tion of America, providing a better sample of the people than is elected to Congress (Long, 1968, p. 21). To the extent that the bureaucrats are representative of a cross section of America, they will be more likely to be responsive to the needs and desires of the public. Because of the specific skills needed to administer federal programs, especially in technical bureaucracies such-as the Forest Service, agency personnel are composed of scientists and other professionals not found in Congress.

Members of the bureaucracy are people whose previous training, background, and affiliation cause them to see themselves at times as representing constituencies that are relatively uninfluential in Congress. There are probably no foresters, soil scientists or wildlife biologists in Congress, so these professionals, present in an agency such as the Forest Service, see it as a duty to be sure that decisions accurately reflect these technical viewpoints. One measure of interest group power can be the strength of their surrogates within the executive branch of government.

In the case of the CNF, for example, the wildlife interest groups felt the extent to which wildlife issues were treated in planning was a result of the influence of the wildlife biologist. It was a mutual relationship. The wildlife biologist was listened to more as greater public interest was expressed in wildlife. Interest groups look for their friends or surrogates in an agency as a way to influence decisions.

An examination of the CNF, to see if it is representative of all the local interests, if all the employees from the fire technician to the

Forest Supervisor are considered, shows that the Forest Service is a

144 fairly good cross section, though light on the employment of women. The hiring of local people for seasonal and technician jobs has resulted in employment of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Indians. The professional ranks of the Forest Service are composed almost entirely of white males.

Efforts are being made to increase ethnic minorities and women in pro­ fessional positions. In terms of viewpoints, most of the professionals are foresters, trained in biological sciences. A few soil scientists and hydrologists who have a more physical science outlook are in the professional ranks. A social science perspective on economics, sociol­ ogy or political science is largely missing. That is one reason it is important for the agency to have public involvement activities to collect citizen values for a planning process. Noncommodity oriented viewpoints are largely missing from the Forest Service personnel.

Kaufman (1978, p. 442) suggests another means for adding repre­ sentativeness to the bureaucracy, an ombudsperson in a centralized governmental complaint bureau having legal powers of investigation. A citizen could bring a complaint of inequities or abuses to such a bureau. Some contend that only a bureaucrat wise in the ways of bureau­ cracy can effectively perform such a function. In the case of the

Forest Service, planning inequities of interest representation would probably be the substance of grievances. This method does not seem as applicable to the situation as use of public involvement techniques.

Another indication of the feeling of lack of representativeness in the bureaucracy is the call for increased popular public participation in agency decision making. With bureaucratic decisions affecting so many

145 aspects of an individual's life, there has been a growing demand for a say in those decisions. Public involvement programs have been a response by the bureaucracy, but have been usually ordered by Congress.

6.3.3. Discrepancies between Citizen and Agency Expectations

Tne order by Congress to provide opportunities for public involvement has not solved the problem of discrepancy between citizen expectation of their role in policy making and the amount of power agen­ cies have shared with interest groups (see Arnstein ladder. Figure 1).

This assertion will be analyzed in three parts; (1) policy formation,

(2) different styles of decision making implying different roles for citizen participation, and (3) the example provided by NFMA.

Policy Formation. Through the policy formation process, major conflicts in society are resolved (Jones, 1970). Jones summarizes the basic elements of the policy process framework; public problems exist in society as a result of the perception of needs by people. Some people have problems in common. Some of these people organize and make

The demands are perceived and judged by those with authority to make decisions. In turn, the decisions are made and enforced, and public problems are affected. People react to the decisions and their enforce­ ment. Some people have common reactions, new demands are made, and the process continues. However, public problems are generally not solved.

Only needs are met lo the satisfaction of certain individuals but not others. The nature of the problem may now have changed or new problems may have moved to a higher priority. "There are ongoing patterns of

146 accommodation in which various institutional actors play various roles in accomplishing the functional activities of the policy process"

(Jones, 1970, p. 72). In the don'sstic arena, Rourke (1969, p. 58) observed policy making as commonly a reconciliation of conflicting group interests as much as the application of expertise to a problem.

Different Styles Mean Different Roles. Different styles of decision-making imply specific roles for citizen participation. Typi­ medium for resolution and reconciliation of conflicting interests. Two major formats for making decisions in the political medium are; (1) elections and (2) legislative votes. In a bureaucracy, three decision styles have been described; (1) incrementalism, (2) satisficing, and

(3) synoptic. Each of these formats and styles uses a different kind of citizen input. If citizens do not understand v\;hich process (format or style) is being used, they will not be able to provide the proper information.

Publics may feel frustrated or angry with an agency if individ­ uals organize a campaign to generate public comment that is inappro­ priate to the agency's decision style. An example of such a situation was the citizen participation process in the Forest Service Roadless

Area Review Evaluation II (RARE II) undertaken to make recommendations to Congress on areas to be included in the Wilderness system. The pub­ lic thought of the agency decisions in terms of votes, and its strategy v^^as to generate the most votes. The public believed that a majority viewpoint v^(ould decide how an area would be classified. Individuals were encouraged to comment on the selection of areas for inclusion in

147 the Wilderness System. About 250,000 pieces of mail with 350,000 signa­ tures were received by the Forest Service. The Forest Service soon got itself into difficulties in deciding on whether to count form letters as equivalent to petitions as equivalent to individual letters as well as the problem of counting signatures versus pieces of mail. Tliere are no laws to guide an agency in this situation in contrast to elections with very specific rules governing who votes, where-and when votes are cast, and how often. In addition, the agency intended to use public input as only one part of a multistep decision process including other factors such as economic efficiency. Public views were not the deciding factor.

Due to the immense number of responses, public comment was analyzed by computer at a centralized location. A "controversality index" was developed. The index rated each area from a -3 to +3 to demonstrate public support for the recommendation. For instance, a -3 indicated that 85 to 100 percent of the public disagreed with a rating (for wilder­ ness, nonwildemess or further study), and a +3 indicated 85 to 100 per­ cent agreed. A House Interior Committee aide said that "almost 400 nonwilderness areas received minus ratings. The aide said the rating showed public comment was not given due consideration" (Public Land News,

April 10, 1979). A more accurate statement is probably that the role of public comment was not clearly understood from the beginning.

Elections.--The governmental decision-making process most famil­ iar to Americans is probably an election. In this form, on a particular, usually well advertised, day, every citizen who has previously regis­ tered is able to vote. Within a matter of hours the decision is known and stands for at least two years or more, few public offices being for

148 less than two years. Citizens who care about the outcome have learned how to organize and influence votes so the decision goes their way.

Laws are specific about when, how, and who may vote. There is little contesting of election results. The citizen input, a vote, is discrete and conclusive. A person or ballot measure wins or losses.

Voting for Legislation.--.'\nother decision-making process some­ what less familiar is voting on legislation, in either Congress, a state legislature, by county board of supervisors, a city council, or other decision-making bodies. There are laws governing the process in the sense of notice, majority needed for passage, and who can vote. The citizen input role is a lobbying effort; to convince an individual to vote a specific way and to get enough votes for a majority. The person who votes usually does so in a visible way so as to be held accountable for his or her decision. Usually, once the decision is made, it stands, though reversals may occur, and there are rules to guide this process.

Citizens continue to develop techniques for lobbying, and there are rules governing lobbying activities. Though more steps are involved in passing legislation than in an election, still the rules are written down and individuals can learn how to get involved and have opportunities to do so.

Now "bureaucratic politics rather than party politics has become the dominant theater of decision-making in the modern state. The adjust­ ment of democratic society to this fact continues to demand all the

There are three generally described ways in which decisions are made by agencies; incrementalism, satisficing, and synoptic. However, a

149 citizen does not know which one is being used and consequently does not know how to respond with comments.

Incrementalism.--In the political world, most decisions are han­ dled in an incremental fashion. Braybrooke and Lindbloom (1963) describe to solve problems, but rather to stave them off or nibble at them.

Policymaking proceeds through a sequence of approximations.

First, one gets an idea of the present conditions, policies, and objectives--in other words, finds out the present situation. Examination of policies proceeds through comparative analysis of no more than the marginal or incremental differences in the consequent social states rather than through an attempt at a more comprehensive analysis. There is no guarantee that those consequences not considered will be unimpor­ tant. The choice among policies is made by ranking solutions as opposed to unilateral action. Resolution of conflict over two values is not expressed by a principle, but rather by stating how much one of value is worth sacrificing at the margin in a given situation in order to achieve an increment of satisfaction in another. This solution is tried and further incremental changes can be made as a result of the feedback.

The public input is related to the ranking of solutions. The publics assess and comment on tradeoffs. There is usually no definite time, format, or even accountable decisionmaker. There is often not a full array of alternatives to the suggested solution, just variations on the same theme. This format allows a little bit for everyone and public input is used to gain a sense of who wants what and what interest is

150 willing or unwilling to compromise. It can be called "mapping the political terrain."

Satisficing.--Simon (1957) states that an individual has neither time, capacity nor information to consider every possible aspect of choice. That does not mean that a person cannot intend to be rational.

Simon replaces the rationalists' goal of maximizing when finding the best course of action with the more modest goal of "satisficing"-finding solutions that are "good enough." This is done by using a set of criteria for the decision which describes minimally satisfactory alternatives, selecting one which meets or exceeds all criteria. The increment chosen is a result of negotiation between interest groups.

!^ourke (1969, p. 2) describes policy decisions as representing the out­ come of an interactive process between two sources of power: (1) the expertise of bureaucrats and (2) the needs and aspirations of constitu­ ent publics. In the domestic arena, he observes policymaking as commonly representing a reconciliation of conflicting group interests as much as the application of expertise to a problem (Rourke, 1969, p. 58). Policy­ making, then, is a negotiating process between interest groups. In order to have successful negotiation between interest groups, government's role is one of assuring access particularly to the most effectively organized groups and of ratifying the agreements and adjustments worked out among the competing leaders. Lowi (1969, p. 71) called this phenom­ enon the "Adam Smith" hidden hand model applied to groups. Citizen participation is then the opportunity, the guaranteed access, for interest groups to negotiate. Negotiation is based on political power exercised by interest groups with access to the debate. The rules for notice.

151 open hearings, are the governmental guarantee o£ access for all groups.

Interest group stratey is to mobilize vocal political power to assure that it is their desires that are satisfied in the final decision.

Interest group politics would define the outcome of the debate between interest groups as the "public interest."

Synoptic.--In looking at the decision-making process, ideally according to the rational or synoptic paradigm, one treats policy ques­ tions as not calling for the exercise of political forces. Facts are perceived as separate from values. A problem is analyzed, information is gathered, alternative solutions formulated and evaluated, and the best solution picked. The synoptic process ties to the Progressives' idea of government as an exercise in technical judgments by profession­ als untainted by politics. However, current thought is that facts can­ not always be separated from values and that it is not humanly possible to formulate and evaluate all solutions. Citizen participation does have a role in such a decision-making process. Citizens can be a source of facts not otherwise easily available to the agency. Individuals know about the history of an area, can be intimately familiar with an area in terms of its natural resources or cultural aspects. The facts help broaden the base of information upon which a decision is based. Again there are no special rules governing this process, and the following questions remain unanswered: whose facts are used, how valid are they, when should they be presented, how much information is needed? Problems of decision-maker accountability, e

.g.,

how much information is used, are also present.

152

6.3.4. NFMA as an Example of Interest

Group Liberalism Legislation

NFMA is an example of the kind of legislation Lowi (1969, p.

144) predicted would result from interest group liberalism. Lowi stated that modem law has become a series of instructions to administrators rather than a series of commands to citizens, delegating power to formu­ late public policy to local agencies. NFMA is a series of instructions to administrators on how to formulate policy at the local forest level in order to resolve conflict over forest management policy. Public policy formulation has been delegated by the legislative branch to an agency in the executive branch, meaning policy formation is now under­ taken by both branches of government.

The traditional dichotomy between administration and policy formation appears to be irrelevant in the case of NFMA land management planning:

Public policy is being formed as it is being executed and likewise it is being executed as it is being formed.

Politics and administration play a continuous role in both formation and execution, though there is probably more politics "in the formation of policy and more administration in the execution of it. Insofar as particular individuals or groups are gaining or losing power or control in a general area, there is politics; insofar as officials act or propose action in the name of public interest, there is administration.

(Friedrich, 1968, p. 416).

The loss of the dichotomy means that the agency administering the law is called upon to resolve differences that were too thorny for the legislature to solve and must do so in the face of the very forces that were active in the legislature, though their relative strength may have changed since the arena has changed (Truman, 1963, p. 443). Many of the same forces acting at the time NFMA was passed in Congress, for example.

153

Audubon, Sierra Club, Cattlemen's Association, etc., were also active in the CNF Planning Forums. Competing interest groups may seek to expand the public involved in the controversy. There were more public interests present at the CNF Planning Forums (fuelwood, ORV enthusiasts, scientific research) than there were at the Congressional hearing on the legisla­ tion.

Local administration of legislation allows for flexibility.

Pennock (1968, p. 488) sees that as a good idea;

A legislature that delegates to an administrative agency the power to regulate in accordance with the public interest is not merely 'passing the buck.' It is providing the means for applying a dynamic and increasingly precise policy based on experience and continuing contact with special interests and freedom to pursue the general welfare as they see it.

Localized planning allows the unique aspects of the CNF to be recognized, such as the absence of timber harvest and the tremendous wildlife diver­ sity. Special interest groups thiough public involvement made their values known. Decision-making at the local level does not mean that only local public input is appropriate. It was not just citizens from

Arizona, but people from all over the United Stated who had visited the

CNF who submitted comments. Thus, both a locally and nationally atten­ tive public interest focused on the management policies of one national forest, and their concerns were taken into account in deciding the issues for planning.

NFMA planning is considered long range planning of 10 to 15 years. Ideally, one associates planning with a "synoptic" approach to decision-making. Realistically, one is dealing with "satisficing." The

154 forest land management plan, is guided in part by the values enunciated by the public during public participation. Lowi (1969, p. 101) believes that planning requires use of authority, law, choice, priorities, and morality, and that interest group liberalism has replaced planning with bargaining because it possesses a strong faith that what is good for government is good for society. The bargaining between interest groups leads to a decision called "politically feasible." Since land management planning is the allocation of land to various uses, some groups will win and other groups will lose during the process and the decision is made in the name of the public interest. At the CNF Planni.ng Forums people heard each other's viewpoints and learned of various groups' aspirations and rationale. The political part of policy making is based on trade­ offs made according to a group's values. Citizen participation aids individuals as well as groups to get into the bargaining process. How­ ever, bargaining is only part of the decision-making process since decision-makers in the agency usually consider other factors along with the public input.

Each responsible official has a different style of decision­ making. It includes pieces of all the styles described earlier. This causes problems for citizens who want to devise a strategy for their input. IVhich of the different kinds of input, votes, lobbying, values collection, negotiation, facts are required depends on what style of decision-making is going to take place. Mismatching a style of citizen input with the decision style leads to frustration since votes do not do any good when what is needed is interest group negotiation.

155

Setting the decision-making style at the beginning of a policy forming or planning process is essential in order to set the strategy required for a meaningful citizen participation process. Citizen input submitted in the appropriate form will be able to be used more directly, without conversion to some other form, and thus should play a more trace­ able role in the agency decision. This should help reduce skepticism of agencies and the charge of ignoring citizen input.

The CNF collected values from the public and problems or issues; discrepancies between actual and desired conditions. This was appro­ priate to "satisficing" a rational approach with public values setting the parameters for planning. Citizen -participation brought together the citizen values to be used in planning. These values were put together with agency technical expertise to formulate alternative plans for forest management. Thinking about goals is a tough assignment for a system held together by compromise, ambiguity, and contradiction [Wilson,

1968, p. 31). A bureaucracy has a set of goals as a mission statement.

For the Forest Service, the mission statement or goal is management of the resource for multiple use and sustained yield. It .is unlikely any local public involvement will change the overall goal of multiple use which is set by Congress as a result of citizen input via elections and

Congressional vote. The way in which individual problems are solved within the overall goals can be influenced locally by citizen values.

The Forest Service has the technical expertise to solve problems and to provide a wide range of outputs. The final mix of outputs is determined by the public values; a mix that is solidified by interest group trade­ offs during negotiations over the choice of the final plan. The CNF

156 case demonstrated one output, wildlife, being given increased emphasis because of strong citizen support. This is not a radical change, of course, since wildlife habitat is one of the major resources of the

National Forest.

6.4. Summary

NFNIA Planning is policy formation at the local level using bureaucratic politics and public participation as the process for re­ solving conflicts leading to a governmental action; resource management.

Out of the planning process will come output levels for recreation, timber, forage, water, wildlife, and wilderness. "There are fundamental choices to be made. Choices that pit one participating public against another that can change irrevocably the character of the domain as a whole" (Reich, 1962, p. 1).

The CNF public involvement process was designed not as a voting process, but as one to broaden the base of information, especially the collection of public values, to be used as the basis for planning.

Broadening the base implies efforts to reach groups, such as ethnic minorities, not previously involved in natural resource policy formation.

Extensive collection is of little value if the results are not used.

The Forest Service has long prided itself in being a professional organi­ zation managing the resources for the good of the nation. Agency insti­ gation of an "Inform and Involve" program to facilitate citizen involvement in this decision-making process has given the public the perception of being involved. Former Forest Service Chief John R.

McGuire has stated;

Resource allocation is nothing more or less than a decision determining which human beings will benefit, which will give up something and to what extent. My greatest concern is to form a process which is fine enough, strong enough, democratic enough to handle each decision. If that process is good, then most decisions resulting from it will be good, at least at the time they are made. As a public administrator, my greatest responsibility is to do everything in my power utilizing the best talent available to develop the decision-making process. . .

. . . first we need a variety of methods to deal with different situations, second, we must define the issues to that the public can debate them knowledgeably and then, the main point is to provide public access to the debate. Finally, the most encour­ aging sign of all, the public is becoming more active partner in the policy-making process. This in itself indicates shifting needs and better recognition of both individual and societal values. (McGuire, 1979).

157

A goal for the CNF public involvement process was a representa­ tive sample of the politically attentive public interested in natural resources. If the process is open, then people who want to be involved can take part. Motivating people to be interested is a complex problem.

The approach taken was to suggest that everyone has a stake in the

National Forest since they are public lands. If an individual uses the

National Forest, then he or she has a stake in its management directly.

But a person may also have a stake in Forest management on a philosophi­ cal basis of "how things out to be." The job in the process was to suggest these ideas and invite participation. Ultimately the response and decision to participate is up to each person. The public responded with problems and issues of CNF management that were used as the basis for planning for land resource allocation. The agency responded to the problems presented. Many of the problems were already kno\vm. It was an opportunity for the public to communicate values and priorities--the stuff of politics—to an agency which prides itself on neutral competence.

The Forest Service personnel are well schooled in resource and economic

158 orientation; the public involvement exposes them to social and political values as well.

The case of increased emphasis on wildlife is an instance of cooperation between an interested public and sympathetic staff which pushed the subject forward. The cultivation of client groups to muster support for existing viewpoints in the bureaucracy occurs. But probably more frequent is the cultivation of client groups to help the agency in

Congress to get larger budgets. Friendly and supportive client groups lessen the chances for Congressional oversight. The Forest Service is in a difficult position with its client groups because they are in compe­ tition for use of the resource. The conflict has had its effect. Many

Forest Service people have become defensive in their interactions with the public because they have been under attack. No matter what decision they make, some client group will be angry with them. The methods chosen for gathering citizen input can help alleviate this problem. The workshop format used by the CNF lessened the attack mentality. There were problems to solve and discussion was focused on the problems, not the agency. People vi^ere not permitted to attack each other in personal terms. Ideas could be disagreed with and they were. Small groups lessened the chances of an individual exhorting a crowd to his or her side with extreme statements. Small groups encouraged a conversational, human scale of interaction, not a faceless mass. Citizen participation that gets out of hand by becoming a shouting match not only does not provide much useful information, but is also very discouraging to the agency staff. On the other hand, a good public meeting with respectfully shared

159 viewpoints and reasoned disagreements adds to the information base, and adds greatly to agency morale and its sense of pride.

The biggest failing; was in the lack of minority representation.

In the case of the CNF, ethnic minorities were underrepresented accord­ ing to population figures. Earlier, evidence was presented that ethnic minorities at this point are not especially interested in land planning.

They can have strong opinions when'the subject directly affects them

(Indians and CAP), but overall are not very interested in natural resource questions. The information presented to the public did not sufficiently motivate minorities to participate. The public involvement on the CNF has not changed the Forest Service or its overall mission.

It did provide issues, the basis for planning. The issues could include almost every problem and to the exent it did the citizens felt they had been heard. That was the easy part. The next planning steps that include citizen participation will be choosing management plans from alternatives presented. Here some groups will gain and others will lose.

Efforts will be made to compromise and some decisions probably deferred until they need specific action. Citizen views will be part of the decision, but so also will economics, legal requirements, and resource constraints. Only in elections does a majority of citizens who vote win. Bureaucratic decisions are not as neat in terms of popular will.

But that is inherent in a government run by three branches, the legis­ lative, executive, and judicial, in a complex society.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberback, Joel, 1969, "Alienation and political behavior," American

Political Science Review, Vol. 63(March):86-99.

Aberback, Joel D. and Bert A. Rockman, 1978, "Administrator's Beliefs about the Role of the Public: the Case of American Federal

Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba, 1963, The Civic Culture, Princeton,

New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

Altshuler, Alan, A. ed., 1968, The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy,

Dodd, Mead and Co., New York.

Alvarez, Salvador, 1971, "Mexican-American Community Organizations,"

.^tunes, George and Charles M. Gaitz, 1974, "Ethnicity and Participation;

A Study of Mexican-Americans, Blacks, and IVhites," American

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80(5);1192-1211.

Arizona Institute for Research, 1974, "Community Attitudes Survey,

A Report to the Comprehensive Planning Process," Tucson, Arizona.

Arnstein, Sherry, 1969, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," American

Institute of Planners Journal, Vol. 35(4)-.216-224.

Antencio, Thomas C., 1971, "The Forest Service and the Spanish Surname

American," presented at Cabinet Committee Hearings on Mexican-

American Affairs, El Paso, Texas.

Babchuk, Nicholas, and R. Thompson, 1962, "Voluntary Associations of

Banfield, Edward C., 1961, Political Influence, The Free Press, Glencoe,

Illinois, 354 pp.

Barrera, Mario, Carlos Munos, and Charles Orenlas, 1972, "The Barrio as an Integral Colony," in Harlan Hahn (ed.) People and Politics in Urban Society, Vol. 6, Urban Affairs Annual Review, Sage

Publications (p. 465-498).

160

161

Behan, R. W., 1972, "Para Politics and Natural Resource Administration, or Ifliat to do IVhile Waiting for the Sierra Club to Arrive," a talk to U.S. Forest Service Tri-Forest Conference on Organiza­ tional Improvement, Boise, Idaho, April 27, 1972.

Berelson, Bernard C., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William H. McPhee, 1954,

Voting, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Berry, Jeffrey, 1974, "Citizens Approach Government, the Strategies of

Influence of Public Interest Groups," talk delivered at 1974

Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago,

Illinois, April 25-27.

Braybrooke, David and Charles E. Lindbloom, 1963, A Strategy of Decision,

Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, The Free Press, Glencoe,

Illinois,

Briegel, Kaye, 1970, "The Development of Mexican-American Organizations"

In Manual P. Servien (ed.) The Mexican-Americans: An Awakening

Bultana, Gordon L., and John C. Hendee, 1972, "Forester's Views of

Interest Group Positions on Forest Policy," Journal of Forestry,

Vol. 70(6):6 pgs.

Burch, William R., Jr., 1976, "Who Participates; a Sociological Interpre­ tation of Natural Resource Decisions," Natural Resources Journal,

Vol. 16Cl):41-54.

Burke, Edmund, 1968, "Citizen Participation Strategies," American Insti­ tute of Planners Journal, Vol. 34(9):287-294.

Caputo, D. A., 1973, "The Citizen Component of Policy Evaluation,"

Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 2(2):92-96.

Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee, and Goerge H. Stankey, 1976,"Codeinvolve;

A Tool for Analyzing Public Input to Resource Decisions," in

John C. Pierce and Harvey R. Doerksen (eds) Water Politics and

Public Involvement, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan

(p. 145-166).

Clark, Roger N., Goerge H. Stankey, and John C. Hendee, 1974, "An Intro­ duction to Codeinvolve; A System for Analyzing, Storing, and

Retrieving Public Input to Resource Decisions," U.S. Forest

Serive, Research Note PNW 223.

Clary, Bruce B., 1978, "Building Public Participation into Environmental

Assessment, a Survey Based Matrix Approach," paper presented at

Western Political Science Association Meetings, Los Angeles,

California, March 18, 1978.

162

Clawson, Marion, 1975, Forests For Whom and For What?, The John Hopkins

Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, 175 pp.

Environmental Planning; The Case of Water Quality Planning in

Western New York," No. 14, Environmental Studies Center, State

University of New York at Buffalo.

Cole, Richard L., 1974, Citizen Participation and the Urban Policy

Process, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass. 178 pp.

Cortner, Hanna J., Edwin H. Carpenter, and Dennis C. Cory, 1979,

Regional Description of the Social, Economic, and Political

Aspects of the Coronado National Fores, School of Renewable

Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Creighton, James L., 1976, "The Limitations and Constraints on Effective

Citizen Participation," a speech. Synergy Association, Palo

Alto, California.

Czarnecki, Jonathan, and Sheldon Kamieniecki, 1979, "Citizen Participa­ tion in Water Quality Policymaking; A Reassessment of the Verba and Nie Model of Public Participation," prepared for delivery at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science

Association, Portland, Oregon.

Davidoff, Paul, 1965, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning," American

Institute of Planners Journal, Vol. 31(11):331-337.

Davidoff, Paul, and Thomas A. Reiner, 1973, "A Choice Theory of Plan­ ning," in Adreas Faludi -ed, A Reader in Planning Theory,

Pergamon Press, N.Y. (pp. 11-39).

Davis, Lawrence, L., Alfred Polchow, John Baden, and Lawrence Royer,

1973, "Citizens and Natural Resources, A Perspective on Public

Involvement," College of Natural Resources, Utah State Univer­ sity, Logan, Utah.

Dotson, Floyd, 1951, "Patterns of Voluntary Associations Among Working

Class," American Sociological Review, Vol. 16(5):687-694.

Driver, B. L., ed., 1974, Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning,

University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Dunn, Douglas, 1976, "Motivation," University of Arizona College of

Agriculture, Tucson, Arizona.

Ellefson, Paul V., 1974, "Planning Forest Land Uses, Roles and Responsi­ bilities of Forestry Professionals," Journal of Forestry, Vol.

72(7):408-410.

163

Erbe, William, 1964, "Social Involvement and Political Activity; A Predi­ cation and Elaboration," American Sociological Review, Vol.

Fairfax, Sally K., 1974, "Public Involvement; An Evaluation of the

Southern Region Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta,

Georgia.

, 1977, "Public Involvement and the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969," paper presented at 1977 Annual Meeting of American

Political Science Association in Washington, D.C., September 1-4.

, 1979, "Public Involvement and Emerging Standards of Judicial

Review of Agency Actions," paper for Mutliple Objective Planning

Workshop, Tucson, Arizona, March 1979.

Faludi, Andreas (ed.), 1973, A Reader in Planning Theory, Pergamon Press,

New York, 402 pp.

Federal Interagency Council on Citizen Participation, 1977, "At Square

One," Proceedings of the Conference on Citizen Participation in

Government Decisionmaking," Washington, D.C., December 1976.

Federalist Papers, 1961 ed. (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John

Jay), ed. Benjamin Fletcher Wright, Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Mass. (pp. 129-135).

Frauenglass, Harvey, 1971, "Environmental Policy] Public Participation and Open Information System," Natural Resources Journal, Vol.

Frear, Samuel T., 1973, "Confrontations vs. Communication; Confessions of a Governmental PR Man," Journal of Forestry, Vol. 71(10):

650-652. ^ :

Freeman, Howard E., Edwin Novak, and Leo G. Reider, 1957, "Correlates of

Membership in Voluntary Associations," American Sociological

Freeman, J. Lieper, 1968, "The Political Ecology of a Bureau," in Alan

A. Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd,

Mead, and Co., New York (pp. 314-324).

Friedrich, Carl J., 1969, Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative

Responsibility," in Alan A. Altshuler ed. The Politics of the

Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd, Mead, and Co., Ne\'.' York (pp. 414-424).

Gale, Richard, 1973, "Communicating with Environmentalists, A Look at

Life on the Receiving End," Journal of Forestry, Vol. 71(10):

653-655.

164

Garcia, F. Chris, and Rudolph 0. de la Garza, 1977, The Chicano Politi­ cal Experience, Three Perspectives, Duxbury Press, North

Scituate, Mass. 205 pp.

Garcia, Margot, 1978, "A Workshop Manual for Public Participation,"

School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona,

Tucson, Arizona.

Gonzales, Nancie L., 1967, The Spanish Americans of New Mexico, A Dis­ tinctive Heritage (Mexican-American Study Project, Advance

Report 9), Graduate School of Business Administration, Univer­ sity of California, Los Angeles, Sept. 1967.

Grebler, Leo, Joan N. Moore, and Ralph C. Guzman, 1970, The Mexican-

American People, The Nation's Second Largest Minority, Free

Press, New York. 777 pp.

Greeley, Andrew, 1974, "Political Participation among Ethnic Groups in the

Hahn, Alan J., 1973a, "Who Decides? Participation in Community Decision

Making," New York State College of Human Ecology, Information

Bulletin 53, Ithaca, New York.

Rest of the Community," New York State College of Human Ecology,

Information Bulletin 55, Ithaca, New York.

Bulletin 54, Ithaca, New York.

Heberlein, Thomas A.,1976a, "Principles of Public Involvement," Coopera­ tive Extension Program, University of Wisconsin, Extension,

Madison, Wisconsin.

Involvement; The Hearing, Public Opinion Poll, The Workshop, and the Quasi-Experiment," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 16(1):

197-212.

Heberlein, Thomas A., and Michael W. Proutz, 1973, "Public Opinion for

Policy Decisions; Comparing Self-selected Participants in Hear­ ings with Representative Samples," paper presented at NCRS-2,

April 6, 1978, Chicago, 111.

Heller, Cecilia S., 1966, Mexican American Youth; Forgotten Youth at the

Crossroads, Schenkman Publishing Co., Cambridge.

165

Hendee, John C., 1974, "Public Involvement in the United States Forest

Service Roadless Area Review; Lessons from a Case Study," paper for seminar on Public Participation by the University

Hendee, John C., Roger N. Clark, and George H. Stankey, 1974, "A Frame­ work for Agency Use of Public Input in Resource Decision-making,"

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 29C2):60-66.

Hill, M., and M. Shecter, 1978, "Multiple Objectives in Outdoor Recrea­ tion Planning," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 10(23:126-140.

Hirschman, Albert 0., 1970, Exit, Voices, and Loyalty, Responses to

Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ingram, Helen M., 1973, "Information Channels and Environmental Decision

Making," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 13(13:150-169.

Ingram, H., J. R. McCain, and Nancy K. Laney, 1980, A Policy Approach to

Political Representation Lessons from the Four Corner States,

John Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future,

Baltimore,

Jones, Charles 0., 1970, An Introduction to the Study o-p Public Policy,

Duxbury Press, Belmont, California, 170 pp.

Kaufman, Herbert, 1967, The Forest Ranger, John Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore.

, 1968, "Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrine of Public Administra­ tion," in Alan A. Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal

Bureaucracy... Dodd, Mead and Company, New York (pp. 72-87).

, 1978, "Administrative Decentralization and Political Power," in Frances E. Rourke ed. Bureaucratic Power in National Poli­

Keaton, Dennis G., and Ray W. Steckel, 1975, "Ad Hoc Committee as Used

Kramer, Fred A., ed., 1973, Perspectives on Public Bureaucracy, a Reader on Organization, Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.

Krislov, Samuel, 1968, "Toward a Representative Bureaucracy," in Alan A.

Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd,

Krutilla, John V., and John A. Haigh, 1978, "An Integrated Approach to

National Forest Management," Resources for the Future Reprint

#156, Washington, D.C.

166

Langdon, Stuart, ed., 1978, Citizen Participation in America, Lexington

Books, Lexington, Mass. 125 pp.

LeBrun, Paul Rene, 1978, An Assessment o£ Public Involvement Effective­ ness; Methodology, Findings, and Recommendations, U.S.D.A.

Forest Service, Systems Application Unit for Land Management

Planning, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Lindbloom, Charles E., 1973, "The Science of 'Muddling Through'," in

Fred A. Kramer ed. Pe:spectives on Public Bureaucracy, Winthrop

Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.

Lipset, Seymor.M., Martin Trow, and James Coleman, 1956, Union Democracy,

The Free Press, Glencoe, 111. 455 pp.

Long, Norton E., 1968, "Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism," in Alan A.

Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd,

Mead and Company, New York (pp. 17-25).

Lowi, Theodore J., 1969, The End of Liberalism, Idealogy, Policy and the

Crisis of Public Authority, W, W. Norton and Co., Inc., New York.

322 pp.

McConnel, Grant, 1966, Private Power and American Democracy, Knopf

Publishers, New York.

McDill, Edward L., and Jeanne Clare Bedley, 1962, "Status, ."inomia.

Political Alienation and Political Participation," The American

McGuire, John R., 1979, "Natural Resource Decisionmaking," a speech given before College of Forestry and Natural Resources, Colorado

State University, March 30, 1979.

Mayo, Selz C., 1950, "Age Profile of Social Participation in Rural Areas of Wake County, North Carolina," Rural Sociology, Vol. 15(Dec):

242-51.

Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Jeanne Nienaber, 1974, "Bureaucracy and the

Public, A Case Study of Participation in the Corps of Engineers," a paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association,

Annual Meeting, April 25-27.

, 1979, Can Organization Change? Environmental Protection, Citi­ zen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers, The Brookings

Institution, Washington, D.C. 220 pp.

Milbrath, Lester W., 1978, "Incorporating the Views of Uninterested but

Impacted Public in Environmental Planning," lecture delivered at

Cook College of Rutgers University, published as an occasional paper by Environmental Studies Center, State University of New

York at Buffalo.

167

Montiel, Miguel, 1970, "The Social Science Myth of a Mexican-American

Family," El Grito, Vol. SCsummer);56-65. tion of Federal Recreation or Money Doesn't Grow on Trees,

Basic Books, Inc., New York.

Olsen, Marvin E., 1970, "Social and Political Participation of Blacks,"

American Sociological Review, Vol. 35(5);682-697.

Orr, David, and Stuart Hill, 1978, "Leviathan, The Open Society and the

Crisis of Ecology," Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 31(4):

457-469.

Orum, Anthony, 1966, "A Reappraisal of the Social and Political Partici­

32-46.

Ostheimer, John M., 1975, "Procedure for Improving Public Involvement in

Land Use Planning and Decision-Making," paper presented at a

Symposium on Man, Leisure, and Wilderness; A Complex Interaction,

Vail, Colorado, September 14-19, 1975.

J 1977, "The Forest Service Meets the Public; Decision-making and Public Involvement on the Coconino National Forest," Eisen­ hower Consortium Bulletin 5, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Pennock, J. Rowland, 1968, "The One and the Many; a Note on the Concept of the Public Interest," in Alan A. Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd, Mead and Company, New York

(pp. 445-448).

Perfater, Michael A., 1975, "Citizen Participation and the Role of the

Public Hearing," Virginia Highway and Transportation Research

Council, VHTRC75-R36.

Plevel, Steve, 1978, personal communication. Planning and Information

Officer, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

Pierce, John C., and Harvey R. Doerksen, eds., 1976, Water Pollution and

Public Involvement, Ann Arbor Sciences Publisher Inc., Ann Arbor,

Mich.

Prewitt, Kenneth, and Alan Stone, 1973, The Ruling Elites, Elite Theory,

York. 244 pp.

Public Lands News, 1979, Vol. 4(4)pl-3, Resources Publishing Co.,

1010 Vermont Ave. N.W., Suite 715, Washington, D.C. 20005.

168

Regens, James L., 1979, "Wilderness Preservation and the Energy-

Environment Tangle: Policy Implication of the US Forest Service

Rare II Process," paper prepared for 1979 Annual Meeting of the

Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April

19-21, 1979.

Reich, Charles, 1962, Bureaucracy and the Forests, Center of Democratic

Institutions, The Fund for the Republic.

Reinke, Kinrad B., and Betty Reinke, 1973, "Public Involvement in Re­ source Decisions; A National Forest Seeks Public, Input for Rec­

Reissman, Leonard, 1954, "Class, Leisure and Social Participation,"

American Sociological Review, Vol. 19(l):76-84.

Robinson, Glen 0., 1975, The Forest Service, A Study in Public Land

Management, John Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore. 337 pp.

Romano, Octavio Ignacio, 1968, "The anthropology and sociology of the

Mexican-Americans: The distortion of Mexican-American history,"

El Grito 2CFall):13-25.

Rose, Arnold, 1967, The Power Structure, Oxford University Press, New

York.

Rosenbaum, Nelson M., 1976, Citizen Involvement in Land Use Governance

Issues and Methods, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. 82 pp.

Rosenbaum, Walter A., 1978, "Public Involvement as Reform and Ritual:

The Development of Federal Participation Programs, in Stuart

Langton ed. Citizen Participation in America, Lexington Books,

Lexington, Mass. CPP- 81-96).

Rosner, Judy B., 1978, "Citizen Participation, Can We Measure Its Effec­ tiveness?" Public Administration Review, Vol. 35(5);457-462.

Rourke, France E., 1969, Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy,

Little, Brown, and Co., Boston. 173 pp.

, ed., 1978, Bureaucratic Power in National Politics, Little,

Brown, and Co., Boston. 478 pp.

Royer, Lawrence, Alfred Polchow, Lawrence A. Davis, and John Baden, 1975,

"Public Involvement in Public Land Management, an Evaluation of

Concepts, Methods, and Effectiveness," Department of Forestry and

Outdoor Recreation, Uta?i State. 48 pp.

Ruble, Arthur J., 1966, Across the Tracks; Mexican-Americans in a Texas

City, The University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

169

Sallach, David L., Nicholas Babchuk, and Alan Booth, 1972, "Social

Involvement and Political Activity; Another View," Social

Science Quarterly, Vol. 52(4):879-892.

Santiestevan, Henry, 1975, "A Perspective on Mexican-American Organiza­ tions," in Gus Tyler ed. Mexican-Americans Tomorrow, Educational and Economic Perspectives, University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 208 pp.

Saraff, Jerome P.,-and Ellis Walton, Jr., undated. Citizen Feedback at

Highway Hearings. mimeo.

Schattschneider, E., 1960, The Semisovereign People, A Realist's Viev\f of Democracy in America, The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, 111. 147 pp.

Schlapfer, T. A., 1975, "Viewpoint of a Federal Agency," Journal of

Range Management, Vol. 28(3);167.

Schneider, Anne L., 1976, "Measuring Political Responsiveness; A Compar­ ison of Several Alternative Methods," in John C. Pierce and

Harvey R. Doerksen eds. Water Politics and Public Involvement,

Ann Arbor Science Publisher Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. (pp. 87-115).

Schneider, Phillip W., 1975, "Agency Coordination, State and Public

Involvement in Resource Planning," Journal of Range Management,

Schubert, Gkendo A., Jr., 1968, "The Public Interest in Administrative

Decision-making; Theorem, Theosophy or Theory," in Alan A.

Altshuler ed. The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd,

Schweitzer, Dennis L., David M. Freeman, and Richard M. Alston, 1975,

"Ensuring Viable Public Land Use Decisions, Some Problems and

Sewell, W., R. Derrick, and Timothy O'Riordan, 1976, "The Culture of

Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking," Natural Resource

Shaffer, Ron E., 1975, "Citizen Involvement in Land Use Planning, A Tool and an Example," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.

Simon, Herbert, 1957, Models of Man, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Snedecor, George W., and William G. Cochran, 1967, Statistical Methods,

Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 593 pp.

170

Spurr, Stephen H., 1976, American Forest Policy in Development, Univer­ sity of Washington Press, Seattle and London. 82 pp.

Steggert, Frank X., 1975, Community Action Groups and City Governments,

Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.

Teske, Raymond H. C., Jr., and Bardem H. Nelson, 1975, "Mexican-American

Political Power; A Dilemma," paper presented at the Western

Social Science Association, May 1975.

Truman,

David B., 1963, The Governmental Process, Political Interests and Public Opinion, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 533 pp.

Twight,

Ben W., 1977, "Confidence or More Controversy, Whither Public

Involvement?" Journal of Forestry, Vol. 75(2):93-95.

Twight,

Ben W., and John J. Paterson, 1978, "Public Participation Effects on a Natural Resource Conflict," paper presented at the Annual

Meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, San Francisco,

California, Sept. 3, 1978.

Twight,

Ben W., and William R. Catton, Jr., 1975, "The Politics of

Images; Forest Managers vs. Recreation Publics," Natural Resources

USDA Forest Service, 1977, "A Guide to Public Involvement in Decision-

Making," Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service, 1977, "Inform and Involve Handbook," draft, August,

1977.

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1976, "Effective Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning," Vol. I and II, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972, "Don't Leave It All to the

Experts," Office of Public Affairs. 20 pp.

U.S. Government, 1970, House of Representatives, "The Role and Effective­ ness of Federal Advisory Committees," 43rd Report by the Commit­ tee on Government Operations. House Report No. 91-1731, Dec.

11, 1970, 91st Congress, 2nd Session.

, 1971, House of Representatives, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations on HR4383 on Nov. 4,

1971, 92nd Congress, 1st Session.

, 1975, House of Representatives, Hearings before the Sub­ committee on Energy and the Environment, 94th Congress, 1st

Session on HR 3510 and Related Bills. Ser. 94-7.

171

U.S. Government, 1970, House of Representatives, Hearings before a

Subcommittee on the Committee on Government Operations, May 26 and 27, 1970, 91st Congress, 2nd Session.

, 1975, U.S. Senate, 94th Congress, 1st Session, Hearings before Subcommittee on Environment and Land Resources of the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S507 and S1202,

March 7 and May 15, 1975.

1976, U.S. Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, Joint Hearings before the Subcommittee on Environment, Soil Conservation and

Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and the

Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on S2851, S2926,

S3091, March 15, 16, 22, 1976.

Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie, 1972, Participation in American Politi­ cal Democracy and Social Equality, Harper and Row, New York.

Wagar, J. Alan, and William S. Folkman, 1974, "Public Participation in

Forest Management Decisions," Journal of Forestry, Vol. 72(7):

405-407.

Weber, Max, 1973, "Bureaucracy," in Fred A. Kramer ed. Perspectives on

Public Bureaucracy, Winthrop Publishers, Inc. (pp. 6-20).

Weitzman, Sidney, 1977, "Lessons from the Monongahela Experience," USDA

Forest Service Inservice Analysis based on interviews with

Forest Service Personnel.

Wengart, Norman, 1971, "Political and Social Accommodation; The Politi­ cal Process and Environmental Preservation," Natural Resources

, 1976, "Citizen Participation; Practice in Search of a Theory,"

Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 16(l):23-40.

Wildavsky, Aaron, 1974, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Little,

Brown, and Co., Boston.

Williams, J. Allen, Jr., Nicholas Babchuk, and David R. Johnson, 1973,

"Voluntary Associations and Minority Status; Comparative Analysis of Anglo, Black and Mexican-Americans," American Sociological

Review, Vol. 38(5):637-646.

Wilm, Ann S., and Kristi L. Thomas, 1975, "The Winooski Workshops, An

Assessment of Specified Workshop Techniques for Stimulating and

Improving Public Involvement in Water Resources," University of

Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. '

172

Wilson, James Q., 1968, "The Bureaucracy Problem," in Alan Altshuler ed.

The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, Dodd, Mead and Company,

New York (pp. 26-31).

Worrell, Albert, 1970, Principles of Forest Policy, McGraw-Hill, New

York.

Wright, Charles R., and Herbert H. Hyman, 1958, "Voluntary Association

Membership of American Adults; Evidence from National Surveys,"

American Sociological Review, Vol. 23(3):284-294.

Zurcher, Louis A., 1970, Poverty Warriors, The University of Texas Press,

Austin, Texas.

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement