A Social Science Method for Public Engagement in the Context of Natural Resource Planning in the United States

References

• Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4):543–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A. 2013. The importance of water-based ecosystem services derived from the shoshone national forest. Masters thesis, Department of Forest Management. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1025/.
   Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A. 2019. Pragmatist ecological economics: Focusing on human-nature relationships and social-ecological systems. Dissertation. Department of Society and Conservation. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1025/.
   Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A. 2020. A public engagement protocol: Social science in support of planning efforts. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. A webinar available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/rmrs/events/upcoming-public-engagement-protocol-social-science-support-planning-efforts.
   Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A., A. E. Watson, and W. T. Borrie. 2020. The flathead wild and scenic river system: Results from public engagement asking about human-nature relationships, threats and contributors to such relationships, and opinions about planning and management. Prepared for the Flathead River Wild and Scenic Comprehensive River Management Planning Team. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A., T. J. Venn, and A. E. Watson. 2017. Understanding social–ecological vulnerability with Q-methodology: A case study of water-based ecosystem services in Wyoming, USA. Sustainability Science 12 (1):105–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0369-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A., W. T. Borrie, and A. E. Watson. 2017. Gila National Forest public planning meetings: Results of the ecosystem services station. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd565609.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Armatas, C. A., W. T. Borrie, and A. E. Watson. 2019. Protocol for social vulnerability assessment to support national forest planning and management: A technical manual for engaging the public to understand ecosystem service tradeoffs and drivers of change. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-396. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. Available at URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/59038.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, N., A. Wallner, and M. Hunziker. 2009. The change of European landscapes: Human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (9):2910–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beierle, T. C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Borrie, W. T., S. F. McCool, and G. H. Stankey. 1998. Protected area planning principles and strategies. In Ecotourims: A guide for planners and managers, ed. K. Lindberg, M. E. Wood, and D. Engeldrum, 2:133–54. North Bennignton, VT: The Ecotourism Society.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brummel, R. F., K. C. Nelson, S. G. Souter, P. J. Jakes, and D. R. Williams. 2010. Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: Community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (6):681–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.488090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchel, S., and N. Frantzeskaki. 2015. Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services 12 (Supplement C):169–77. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014.
   Google Scholar
• Bull, R., J. Petts, and J. Evans. 2008. Social learning from public engagement: Dreaming the impossible? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5):701–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802208140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, K. M. A., A. D. Guerry, P. Balvanera, S. Klain, T. Satterfield, X. Basurto, A. Bostrom, R. Chuenpagdee, R. Gould, B. S. Halpern, et al. 2012. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62 (8):744–56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, B., and U. Kothari. 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? London, United Kingdom: Zed Books Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (3):393–408. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, et al. 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science 359 (6373):270–2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvorak, R. G., W. T. Borrie, and A. E. Watson. 2013. Personal wilderness relationships: Building on a transactional approach. Environmental Management 52 (6):1518–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0185-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, J., L. C. Stringer, A. J. Dougill, J. Leventon, M. Nshimbi, F. Chama, A. Kafwifwi, J. I. Muledi, J.-M K. Kaumbu, M. Falcao, et al. 2014. Assessing participatory practices in community-based natural resource management: Experiences in community engagement from Southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 137:137–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, A. P., T. Paveglio, M. Carroll, D. Murphy, and H. Brenkert-Smith. 2013. Assessing social vulnerability to climate change in human communities near public forests and grasslands: A framework for resource managers and planners. Journal of Forestry 111 (5):357–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flint, C. G., I. Kunze, A. Muhar, Y. Yoshida, and M. Penker. 2013. Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and Urban Planning 120:208–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermelingmeier, V., and K. A. Nicholas. 2017. Identifying five different perspectives on the ecosystem services concept using Q methodology. Ecological Economics 136:255–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irey, B. T. 2014. Stakeholder perspectives regarding the ecosystem services produced by the frank church - river of No return wilderness in Central Idaho. Master thesis, College of Forestry and Conservation. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, R. L., and D. A. Deagen. 2001. Choosing public participation methods for natural resources: A context-specific guide. Society & Natural Resources 14 (10):857–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/089419201753242779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linnenluecke, M. K., M.-L. Verreynne, M. J. de Villiers Scheepers, and C. Venter. 2017. A review of collaborative planning approaches for transformative change towards a sustainable future. Journal of Cleaner Production 142:3212–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luers, A. L. 2005. The surface of vulnerability: An analytical framework for examining environmental change. Global Environmental Change 15 (3):214–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, S. R., S. F. McCool, and R. C. Lucas. 1989. Wilderness campsite impacts: Do managers and visitors see them the same? Environmental Management 13 (5):623–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01874968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCool, S. F., and K. Guthrie. 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Society & Natural Resources 14 (4):309–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/713847694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muro, M., and P. Jeffrey. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (3):325–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, D. J., C. Wyborn, L. Yung, and D. R. Williams. 2015. Key concepts and methods in social vulnerability and adaptive capacity. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-328. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, B. G. 2012. The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (4):447–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141 (10):2417–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, C. H. Quinn, and L. C. Stringer. 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5):1933–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M. S., S. Vella, E. Challies, J. de Vente, L. Frewer, D. Hohenwallner-Ries, T. Huber, R. K. Neumann, E. A. Oughton, J. Sidoli del Ceno, et al. 2018. A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology 26 (S1):S7–S17. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: S7–S17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2):155–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1):3–29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (2):251–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steelman, T. A., and L. A. Maguire. 1999. Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (3):361–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:3<361::AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-K.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenner, P., and R. Stainton-Rogers. 2004. Q methodology and qualiquantology: The example of discriminating between emotions. In Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice, ed. Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown, and D. D. Clarke, 101–20. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1936. The foundations of psychometry: Four factor systems. Psychometrika 1 (3):195–209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288366.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, W. 1954. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Vol. 29. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2281274.
   Google Scholar
• Talley, J. L., J. Schneider, and E. Lindquist. 2016. A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management. Ecology and Society 21 (4):38. doi:https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08830-210438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tippett, J., J. F. Handley, and J. Ravetz. 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning 67 (1):9–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2006.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, B. L. II, 2010. Vulnerability and resilience: Coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environmental Change 20 (4):570–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture. 2018. Draft land management for the Gila National Forest: Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Sierra Counties, New Mexico. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd573667.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• USDA Forest Service. 2012. National forest system land management. Federal Register 77(68):21162-21276. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• USDA Forest Service. 2017. Final assessment report of ecological/social/economic sustainability conditions and trends: Gila National Forest, New Mexico. Silver City, NM: Gila National Forest.
   Google Scholar
• Vacik, H., M. Kurttila, T. Hujala, C. Khadka, A. Haara, J. Pykäläinen, P. Honkakoski, B. Wolfslehner, and J. Tikkanen. 2014. Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 144:304–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Born, R. J., R. Lenders, W. T. De Groot, and E. Huijsman. 2001. The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in western countries. Environmental Conservation 28 (1):65–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, R. G., J. Flynn, C. K. Mertz, P. Slovic, and R. Gregory. 1998. Acceptable practices in Ontario’s forests: Differences between the public and forestry professionals. New Forests 16 (2):139–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006577019706.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, A. E., N. A. Christensen, D. J. Blahna, and K. S. Archibald. 1998. Comparing manager and visitor perceptions of llama use in wilderness. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/leopold/pubs/341.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar