Competing Perspectives on Public Participation in National Park Service Planning: The Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area
Keywords:Public participation, community involvement, stakeholder involvement, park management, environmental management, environmental conflict, Boston Harbor Islands, Q methodology, discourse analysis.
AbstractNearly all types of recreation agencies are feeling the pressure to increase public involvement. Accordingly, attention is turning to the question of how to organize such processes. Much of the literature outlining advice for how to best involve the public in collaborative decision making implicitly assumes that there is one best way to “do” public participation. In other words, one process can meet everyone’s needs adequately. Indeed, public participation theory contains a surprising lack of allowance for diverse preferences of what is a “good” process.We report on an empirical investigation in which we explore what participants of the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership planning process think about the most appropriate way to conduct public participation. Tapping subjective beliefs and preferences with an approach called Q methodology, we collected in-depth qualitative and quantitative data from experienced participants. Analysis of these data ended with three distinct narratives on what is the ideal public participation process for this context. One emphasized the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in an atmosphere of trust with the presence of a good leader to channel diverse voices in a consensus-based process. Another emphasized a process that provided recommendations and outcomes acceptable to the National Park Service (NPS). A third focused on the guidance of a strong leader and producing recommendations that are implementable, effective, and efficient.While these results can not be generalized beyond this case, it is reasonable to assume that there will always be competing ideas about what is the best process to accomplish public participation. This research has documented that these differences can be profound. Yet the success of the BHIP process also suggests that these differences can also be overcome by crafting a process that meets a variety of different and sometime competing demands. We conclude that knowing what people want from public participation is essential to crafting a legitimate and effective process and delivering a program that is widely viewed as meaningful and successful. These findings are relevant to the mission of promoting public participation in the NPS and other recreation agencies. Planners should assume that there are multiple ideas about what is the most appropriate process for any given situation. It may be wise to clarify preferences and promote a dialogue with key participants about what is the most appropriate process. Success should be viewed a s a function not only of the design features used but also the extent to which the design matches the needs and preferences of the participants.
Sagamore Publishing LLC (hereinafter the “Copyright Owner”)
Journal Publishing Copyright Agreement for Authors
PLEASE REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, AND INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS BY CHECKING THE ‘AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS COPYRIGHT NOTICE’ CHECKBOX BELOW.
I understand that by submitting an article to Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, I am granting the copyright to the article submitted for consideration for publication in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration to the Copyright Owner. If after consideration of the Editor of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the article is not accepted for publication, all copyright covered under this agreement will be automatically returned to the Author(s).
THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
Assignment of Copyright
I hereby assign to the Copyright Owner the copyright in the manuscript I am submitting in this online procedure and any tables, illustrations or other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript in all forms and media (whether now known or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when the article is accepted for publication.
Reversion of Rights
Articles may sometimes be accepted for publication but later be rejected in the publication process, even in some cases after public posting in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights will revert to the Author.
Retention of Rights for Scholarly Purposes
I understand that I retain or am hereby granted the Retained Rights. The Retained Rights include the right to use the Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
All journal material is under a 12 month embargo. Authors who would like to have their articles available as open access should contact Sagamore-Venture for further information.
In the case of the Accepted Manuscript and the Published Journal Article, the Retained Rights exclude Commercial Use, other than use by the author in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works or to extend the Article to book length form or re-use by the author of portions or excerpts in other works.
Published Journal Article: the author may share a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI.
- The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated author(s) and has not been published elsewhere.
- The Article was not submitted for review to another journal while under review by this journal and will not be submitted to any other journal.
- The Article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
- I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in the Article.
- If the Article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this Journal Publishing Agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.