Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 11 October 2014, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
Understanding community engagementin plantation forest management:insights from practitioner andcommunity narrativesMelanie (Lain) Dare a d , Frank Vanclay b d & Jacki Schirmer c da Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research , University ofTasmania , Private Bag 54, Hobart Tasmania, 7001, Australiab Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences ,University of Groningen , PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, TheNetherlandsc Fenner School of Environment and Society , Australian NationalUniversity , ACT, 0200, Australiad Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Private Bag 12 ,Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, AustraliaPublished online: 26 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Melanie (Lain) Dare , Frank Vanclay & Jacki Schirmer (2011) Understandingcommunity engagement in plantation forest management: insights from practitioner andcommunity narratives, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54:9, 1149-1168, DOI:10.1080/09640568.2011.560456
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.560456
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Understanding community engagement in plantation forest management:
insights from practitioner and community narratives
Melanie (Lain) Darea, Frank Vanclayb and Jacki Schirmerc*
aTasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 54, HobartTasmania 7001, Australia; bDepartment of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences,
University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands; cFenner School ofEnvironment and Society, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia;
a,b,cCooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Private Bag 12, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
(Received 27 October 2009; final version received 19 November 2010)
Community engagement (CE) processes are an essential component of modernforest management practices. Required under law and in line with modernbusiness paradigms, CE processes need to produce positive social as well asoperational outcomes, a balance that is often complicated and idealistic. Thispaper identifies pathways to successful CE within operational plantation forestrymanagement. Using narratives to explore the multiple experiences of thoseinvolved in engagement processes, the paper highlights the perspectives of bothpractitioners and other stakeholders. Analysing the multiple goals andinterpretations of engagement encounters, approaches for improving CE practicesused in plantation management and other settings are identified.
Keywords: public participation; plantation forestry management; narratives;practitioner perspectives
1. Introduction
In response to increasing social demands for more inclusive decision-makingprocesses, community engagement (CE) has become a critical element of modernforest management. CE ‘‘is a generic term that can reflect many different levels andintensities of involvement by stakeholders, often specifically in relation to oneparticular institution’’ (Eversole and Martin 2005, p. 8). Analogous to publicparticipation or public involvement, CE incorporates a broad spectrum ofinformation sharing and decision-making activities, from basic informationprovision through to community empowerment processes (IAP2 2007). Based onthe ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (Arnstein 1969), CE activities are oftencategorised into a spectrum of activities, each of which gives the community differentlevels of active decision-making control. Many of these spectrums assume thattechniques that facilitate power-sharing are superior to ‘less engaging’ forms of CEsuch as consultation or information sharing. However, others argue that thishierarchical interpretation of public participation activities is no longer applicable
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Vol. 54, No. 9, November 2011, 1149–1168
ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online
� 2011 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.560456
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
within the complexity of modern society (Ross et al. 2002, May 2006). In somesituations, the use of information sharing and other forms of participation thatenable stakeholders to make better informed decisions are preferred by stakeholders,as they meet their desired level of engagement better than processes enabling moredirect control over decision-making processes (Hammersley Chambers and Beckley2003, Creighton 2005, Beder 2006, May 2006). This increased emphasis andunderstanding of the need for a variety of ‘levels’ of engagement is reflected in thewide range of CE approaches used within Australian plantation management, whereforest managers implement a range of CE techniques, from consultative notificationprocesses in which community members can raise concerns but have no decision-making power, to long-term advisory committees where community members mayhave more significant input to decisions (Dare et al. 2008).
Over recent decades there has been a rapid expansion of Australia’s plantationestate, promoted by various policies of the Australian federal, state and territorygovernments, including the National Forest Policy and the Plantations 2020 Vision(Commonwealth of Australia 1995, Plantations 2020 2002). The establishment ofplantations within predominantly agricultural settings has been met with consider-able social concerns regarding perceived environmental and socio-economic impacts(Schirmer 2002). Suggestions have been made in rural communities that the‘‘plantation industry is less than responsible when it comes to neighbourhoodrelations’’ (Tonts and Schirmer 2005, p. 288), highlighting the need for plantationmanagers to improve their field-based (i.e. operational) CE practices.
Operational CE is a common form of engagement undertaken within the forestindustry, providing opportunities for forest managers and stakeholders to discussforest management operations. These field-based engagement processes are typicallyrestricted to operational concerns such as the timing of proposed operations,harvesting boundaries or chemical application. Therefore, they have little scope orcapacity to effectively respond to larger philosophical or broader policy level issues.Operational CE practices undertaken within the Australian plantation industry varydue to the inconsistency in regulations governing forest management (Dare et al.2008). CE techniques favoured by plantation managers include letter notificationsthat inform potentially affected community members of upcoming operations, withfollow-up face-to-face meetings with interested and specifically selected communitymembers (Dare et al. 2008). In those jurisdictions where ‘Notice of Intent’ letters aremandatory, the typical engagement process can be described as a step-by-stepmethod where letters are sent by plantation companies to nearby landholdersnotifying them of planned operational activities; concerned neighbours reply; andfurther engagement opportunities then develop. In regions where there is norequirement for letter notifications to be sent prior to the commencement ofoperations, the engagement process is more variable, with engagement opportunitiesdeveloped via over-the-fence conversations, participation at field days, communitynetworks and through industry representation on local social and businesscommittees. Personal interactions such as these described are essential forparticipative decision making, as unstructured and informal participation maycome easily and naturally to both forest managers and community participants(Hailey 2001). The reliance of plantation managers on face-to-face meetings as theirpreferred tool for engagement highlights the need for managers to be able tocommunicate effectively in diverse social contexts, taking into account the individualneeds, values and goals of all participants.
1150 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
This paper does not attempt to provide an analytical critique of these processesor individual CE techniques, with a more detailed critique of common CE techniquesutilised in forest management provided in other forthcoming work. Focusing on theimplementation of operational CE, we provide a different way of looking at therealities of CE within plantation forestry, identifying pathways to the moresuccessful use of CE in operational forest management. Using actor narratives toanalyse operational CE, a composite narrative is constructed using language that isaccessible to a wide range of readers, encouraging the reader to personalise the storyto their own experiences. Highlighting what practitioners and other stakeholders arethinking and why, we analyse the multiple goals and interpretations of engagementencounters. Many of the activities described are common across a range of resourcemanagement disciplines; therefore, these insights are of use to any engagementpractitioner interested in achieving more from their everyday interactions with thecommunity regarding natural resource management issues.
2. Methods
Narratives of typical CE encounters in operational situations were drawn fromresearch into CE within Australian plantation management (Dare et al. 2008).Research was conducted in Tasmania and south-west Western Australia, bothregions of intensive plantation activity. These areas were selected due to theimportance of plantation management to the forest industry in those regions, and theperceived need for improved engagement practices to help ease social concernsregarding ongoing plantation management.
The forest industry is an important part of Tasmania’s economy, employingapproximately 6300 people and with an annual turnover of approximately AUD$1.4to 1.6 billion in 2006 (Schirmer 2008). An estimated 309, 000 hectares of plantationforests have been established across Tasmania for intensive wood and fibreproduction, with nearly 70% privately owned (Gavran and Parsons 2010). Forestmanagement practices in Tasmania are governed by federal and state basedregulations, including the mandatory Tasmanian Forest Practices Code (2000). Inaddition, the majority of Tasmania’s commercially managed forests are certified withvoluntary third party forest certification under the Australian Forestry Standard(AFS). The Tasmanian Forest Practices Codes and the AFS certification standardboth include requirements for CE.
The Western Australian (WA) case study focused on the south-west of WA asforest management is primarily undertaken in this higher rainfall region of the state.Approximately 425, 000 hectares of plantations have been established in the south-west for fibre and timber production, with over 72% privately owned (Gavran andParsons 2010). Most forest managers have adopted the voluntary Code of Practicefor Timber Plantations in Western Australia (Forest Industries Federation (WA) Inc2006), and have achieved forest certification under standards associated with theForest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the AFS. The Code of Practice and the forestcertification standards require forest managers to undertake CE activities.
Using qualitative approaches, including semi-structured interviews and work-shops, the study was designed to gain an understanding of current CE practices andto assess the effectiveness of such practices. Interview questions and probes wereopen-ended and flexible, developed to suit the context of the interview. Interviewswere conducted with 28 plantation managers and 14 community members. Forest
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
managers interviewed included those field foresters and senior managers who wereactively involved in either conducting CE processes, or setting corporate CE policiesand procedures. Community members interviewed included local residents who hadparticipated in CE activities, representatives of local and state governments, andrepresentatives of interested stakeholder groups. The diversity of researchparticipants and the range of forest management organisations represented resultedin a comprehensive overview of current CE practices within the Australianplantation industry.
The plantation managers interviewed were identified using professional andpersonal networks. Operating in compliance with the Australian privacy legislation,community members were selected using snowball-sampling methods whereparticipants help to identify other people who are well suited to participate in theresearch (Ritchie 2003). Snowball sampling can improve participation rates due to itsefficiency and personalised nature, however, care needs to be taken as snowballsampling does not always result in a representative sample (Ritchie 2003, Bryman2004). For the purposes of this research a broad range of CE experiences within theplantation industry was required, which does not necessarily mean that arepresentative sample was required. To achieve this diversity maximum variationsampling procedures were undertaken in addition to the snowball sampling, wherewe actively sought research participants with differing perspectives (Guba andLincoln 1989).
Data were analysed using the constant comparative method whereby ‘‘data isbroken down into discrete parts, closely examined, and compared for similarities anddifferences’’ (Strauss and Corbin 1990, p. 102). In this processes data are assignedcoded, labelled and compared against other records within the same coding category(Glaser and Strauss 1967). The constant comparative approach enabled a thoroughunderstanding of the data through continual comparisons between data andcategories, identifying similarities, differences and emerging concepts. Data analysisproceeded iteratively, guided by the adaptive theory approach whereby theorygeneration is shaped by incoming evidence and prior theoretical understandings(Layder 1998). Adaptive theory acknowledges that researchers bring prior knowl-edge to the research. The authors of this paper have considerable experience inparticipatory processes and in operational forestry management, thus broughtextensive practical and theoretical knowledge to this research.
3. Same place, different stories
The following narratives describe the process of plantation establishment from theperspectives of a hypothetical forester (Paul) and the hypothetical landowners (Steveand Mary) of the farm adjacent to a property on which a plantation is to beestablished. The establishment phase of plantation development is important forforest managers, as it is often fraught with tension due to rapid landscape changeand new land management regimes. These narratives are not actual quotes fromspecific individuals; rather they represent an accumulation of comments from adiversity of our research participants, including foresters, interested communitymembers and impacted neighbours. They are constructed from multiple conversa-tions held in the course of this research and reflect the key themes that emergedrepeatedly from these conversations. Table 1 details these key themes and their
1152 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
importance in the practice of everyday engagement activities. These themes areincorporated throughout the narratives and discussion.
Collated from semi-structured interviews conducted in the participants’ homes orplaces of work, the narratives reveal common scripts and discourses that are at play inaffected communities (Vanclay et al. 2007, Fleming and Vanclay 2010, Enticott andVanclay forthcoming). These scripts and discourses depict the interviewee’s naturalresponses to particular situations. They are learned through social interactions and areshaped by social norms, values and expectations (Silvasti 2003a, 2003b).
Table 1. General key themes emerging from the data.
Theme Description Importance
CE process General characteristics of theCE process (e.g. inclusivity,honesty, respect,transparency, authority,reciprocity, reflexivity).
The way in which CE isconducted has a significantimpact on the outcomes anddevelopment of personalrelationships.
Social history and change Acknowledgement of theimportance of previousengagement and personalhistories with both peopleand places.
Understanding the impact ofprevious personal and socialhistories can help to guideCE design andimplementation, and forestmanagement choices.
Trust The need for and impact oftrust.
Trust is essential fordeveloping long-termrelationships.
Values The tangible and intangibleaspects of people’s lives thatpeople find important.
Understanding, identifying andaccepting the diversity ofvalues that exist within acommunity can help toreduce conflict and planforest managementoperations.
Knowledge types The various forms ofinformation that people seekand accept as valid whenmaking decisions.
Accepting the diversity ofknowledge types isimportant to understandwhere people seekinformation from and theirlikely understanding offorest managementoperations.
Operational realities The environment in whichforest managers need tomake decisions and conductforest managementactivities.
It is important to keepexpectations of both forestmanagers and people incommunities realistic andthus consider thecommercial, regulatory andsocial environment in whichoperations are occurring.
Power The impacts and prevalence ofvarying power relationsbetween forest managersand community members.
Power is a natural part of allinteractions. Being aware ofpower and working toensure that powerarrangements suit thecontext is important.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Rather than presenting a series of static quotes, the use of a composite narrativeenables the reader to embed themselves in the described situation, allowing the storyto bring the key themes to life, and possibly ‘‘inspire and instil a sense of humility’’(de Cock 2000, p. 597, in Brown and Rhodes 2005, p. 510). The use of narratives, orstories, to present research is common in many disciplines such as organisationaltheory and psychology (see Howard 1991, Brown and Rhodes 2005). Sarbin (1986, inVitz 1990) shared the idea that people interpret their lives through stories,highlighting the ease with which people react and accept such narratives and thustheir potential as a form of research presentation. Fictional narratives are thought toprovide a valuable means through which to understand lived experiences, enablingthe reader to ‘‘experience vicariously the relationships and ideas presented’’ (Dyerand Wilkins 1991, p. 617, Brown and Rhodes 2005). The narratives provided hereare similar to those described by Brown and Kreps (1993), blending ‘‘the actualdialogue told in specific stories to form a composite, interpretive narrative thatrelates an impressionistic account of the concept under investigation’’ (p. 54). Thenarratives are presented in vernacular style to encourage the reader to feel the‘experience’. An attempt has been made to explain Australian colloquialisms, whichare presented in order to provide some sense of authenticity.
Steve (the neighbour, thinking aloud to himself):
I always knew it was going to happen, that it would be only matter of time before thetree-growers found us. This was a good farming area; less now that the farms up theroad are going to those ‘tree-changers’ [hobby farmers]. Those city slickers don’tunderstand the land, they move out here to the country for the ‘lifestyle’, then just let theweeds grow and fences fall down. Worse still, they plant vineyards, as if they are goingto make any money from yet another boutique Chardonnay!
I had better check the fences; apparently the tree-growers tend to break them with thebulldozers when they rip the paddocks ready for planting. As a replacement for thebroken fences, I might even ask them to provide game-proof fencing – those bloody treecompanies have the money for it! Tommo had a tree farm go up beside him a few yearsback, he says the game is coming back in droves, eating him out of house and home.
The house and stock water for my place comes up from the creek below Jim’s old place[that will now become a plantation]. The pipe cuts straight across what used to be Jim’sold hay paddock. I suppose I had better do something about that. I wonder how muchtime I’ve got? Better not let Mary know, don’t want her to panic about it, she is alreadyin a bit of a tizz. She thinks that they are going to spray our house with chemicals everyother week and that the trees will block out our sun overnight! She’s probably right!
I’m glad that the young bloke from the forestry company rang last week and said hewanted to meet up to talk about the tree farm. I had no idea who to call and this wasworrying me because something has to be done about the hole in the fence. I also wantto make sure they don’t bulldoze that clump of bush in the top paddock. The oldchimneys from my great grandfather’s cottage are in there – it’d be a shame to see themgo, just for a tree farm.
Paul (the forester, thinking to himself as he is driving out to meet neighbours, Steveand Mary).
It is a long way out here, two hours each way from the office! I hope that the property isan easy one, although I doubt it as the locals up here are a dark shade of green. Lastyear they complained about Johnson’s place going into trees, and that’s miles awayfrom them. Old Jim’s place is not a bad farm by the look of it. I’ll have trouble keeping
1154 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
up with weed control with these good soils and high rainfall. I wonder what chemicals Iwill be restricted to? Given the type of people these locals are, I reckon I should steerclear of aerial spraying and any triazines. It’s a shame really; the weed control is going tocost us a bucket of money.
By the looks of the paddocks, wallaby browsing will be an issue here too. It’s going to behard to protect the plantation from the wallabies with all these creeks and remnant bushpatches providing plenty of places for them to hide. They really make it difficult toshoot. A poison program would be more effective and cheaper, although it will be toughto get support from this lot, with all their wind chimes and rainbow flags.
This isn’t going to be an easy chat today with Steve from next door, especially as I amrunning late. I normally like to walk the property first, go over the plan and make sure Iam familiar with the place and what we said we are going to do. I’m under pressure tomove the bulldozers here soon. I normally like to chat with the neighbours before theyget the ‘Notice of Intent’. Those bland legalistic letters do nothing for our ‘facelessgiant’ profile. It’s us blokes out in the field that have to deal with the people. If only wehad more time and people on the ground. At least Steve sounds like he might be okay,seemed reasonable on the phone when I rang, in fact he almost seemed relieved.
[As Paul arrives] No wind chimes, things are looking up!
Mary (neighbour, thinking to herself before Paul arrives):
When Steve said that fellow from the forestry company called and was coming over, Isaw red. I knew the tree company had bought Jim’s place, but I don’t like it. It’shappening all too fast for me to deal with. Jim only left two weeks ago and here they arestarting with the bulldozers. I’ve got the kids and animals to look after; there is no wayI’m going to let them do anything that will hurt us, no way at all! Steve doesn’tunderstand, he is so calm and just thinks that the tree companies will look after us. Theydon’t look after anyone except their shareholders!
I have big issues with those monoculture tree farms. I’ve read all about them on theInternet and even went to the protest about that farm being sold to a tree farm companylast month. Met some great people, they were really sympathetic about Jim’s place, gaveme some tips on what to ask for. No poison, nasty stuff should be made illegal. Nohelicopter spraying, and absolutely no triazines, atrazine or something like that.Apparently I should also make sure that they don’t knock any trees down, too. I’vetaken some photos of what it looks like now for proof – I don’t trust that company.
This house is too close to the fence. It’s a relic of when Steve’s great grandfather ownedmost of the valley. I don’t want those trees too close, they will block out my sun, andleaves will get on the roof and taint my drinking water. I like my quality of life, the life ourkids have, it’s our special place in this valley; I don’t want all that wrecked by thiscompany. Their people don’t care, they just come in, and spray their chemicals around,and then they go home to their big city houses and never-ending clean water. Somebodyhas to tell them what’s right. There’s a car, must be the company guy. Here we go (sighs).
Steve (neighbour, thinking to himself after the discussion was completed):
That wasn’t too bad really. That forester, Paul, seemed like a decent young fellow, evenif he was late. I’m looking forward to getting all this started. It’ll be pretty exciting to seethe big bulldozers come down the road in the next week or two. The council mightactually have to do something about the overhanging growth along the road. It used tobe a good road, but it’s barely more than a goat track at the moment, though. Thepeople up the valley like it that way, less tourists, or ‘terrorists’ as we all call’em.
Paul was pretty upfront about what was going to happen next door. He said Jim’s oldhouse will stay, and that they will rent it out leaving a bit of space around it. I am
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
worried about the types who might move in. I might need to get those doors on the shedfixed and a couple of new locks.
Paul showed me the map of what was to happen, not many of the old paddock trees willbe cleared for the new plantation, just a few old paddock trees. I can even get somefirewood out of them if I want. He was happy to hear about the chimneys, they hadn’tfound them yet, but he will survey them to make sure they are protected.
WhenMary brought us out a cuppa, shemade it clear that shewasn’t happywith thewholetree farm thing.Mary reckons that the trees will suck up all the water and nothing will livein themand that our roofwill get sprayed. Paulwas really goodwith her, let her speak. Paulsaid that given the location, the company won’t aerial spray; they will use tractors or handspraying.Apparentlywewill even get a letter sayingwhen they are going to spray andwhatchemicals they will use.WhenMary said that she was worried about the trees blocking outthe sun, Paul even agreed. He suggested a 50-metre setback.Mary wanted 100 metres, butPaul couldn’t agree without talking to his boss. He said he would get back to us.
Paul and I jumped in the truck to check the broken fence. I asked about the water pipe.Paul said he will need to organise an easement to protect my rights, but it shouldn’t be aproblem. They will even leave a strip along it.
Paul reckons about four weeks before they start. He asked me whether I would like toput some stock on to Jim’s place until they plant. Think I might put the whole lot overthere, and give my place a rest for a bit. Better go tell Mary what happened. She will behappy, obviously not completely happy as she doesn’t like tree farms, but it could havebeen worse, a lot worse.
Paul (forester, thinking to himself after the discussion was completed):
Nice people, Steve and Mary. That went well – eventually. I thought I was in for it withMary though, even when I told her that we weren’t using atrazine – she wouldn’t listen.She kept going on about how tree companies are destroying rural communities. In theend I just shut up, it was easier that way. I drank my cuppa, wondering if it waspoisoned, and nodded politely. I suppose, thinking back, I listened better by notresponding to every little complaint. I let her talk, let her get it all off her chest.
After all the talk about chemicals destroying the environment and monoculturescreating biological deserts, she finally got to her point, the one that I was after when Iwalked in the door an hour and a half earlier. She has three kids and some much-lovedfamily pets and doesn’t want them to be put in any form of danger. Like many parents,Mary is worried about the increased traffic on the road and the safety of her kids whenthe shooters start. I might have to rethink the use of poison as her kids and their dogsuse Jim’s old place as a playground, especially down near the creek where I had wantedto lay baits. It wouldn’t be any good having a kid’s dog die from our baits. I will call herin a few days after she has thought about it all to confirm a few things.
Looking at the map, I might be able to give the house a larger buffer. Seems like there’s acreek about 80 metres off the boundary. It cuts off an area that will be a pain to manage. Imight let them have it as part of their buffer area from the edge of the plantation. It’s morethan is necessary, but it’s probably a good deal all round. I reckon that Steve would behappy to use it, and that would help us keep the weeds and fire risk down.
I reckon they’ll be good neighbours; they keep a tidy place which is usually a goodindicator. It is good that Steve is happy to graze off the paddocks for us, he gets the freefeed and I get a better result and hopefully a good long-term neighbour who will lookout for us. We need help when the properties are so far from the office.
4. Aligning practice with theory
These narratives are not new, nor uncommon. They indicate the diversity inpeople’s values, priorities and knowledge bases. Concern has been raised in the
1156 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
decision-making literature that many managers look to science and technology fordecision-making reasoning, rather than trying to understand other people’s valuesand perspectives (Howitt 2001, Shindler et al. 2002). This narrow technocratic viewresults in community concerns regarding the perceived authority, arrogance andelitism of professional experts (Fischer 2000). Overcoming these initial professionaland social obstacles to effective CE is imperative; unfortunately, however, manyforest managers are ill prepared to implement CE, with their professional trainingpredominantly focusing on technical and biophysical aspects of forest managementrather than the social (Lee et al. 1990). The skills, attitudes and behaviour of CEpractitioners are very important (Kumar 2002, Gough et al. 2003), and quitedifferent to those traditionally held by forest managers (Race and Buchy 1999). CEpractitioners need extensive communication skills and a broad social understanding,with poor communication skills potentially inhibiting the engagement process(Hammersley Chambers and Beckley 2003).
With many operational CE activities undertaken as a result of regulatorycompliance requirements for forest managers (e.g. ‘Notice of Intent’ notifications),CE and its outcomes can be limited. The narrow focus of these regulatorycompliance requirements means they typically only require limited forms ofengagement, primarily the provision of basic operational information andsubsequent basic consultation. Forest managers need to be better aware of thebroader concepts underpinning CE and how to implement a broader form of CE inthe field, ensuring not only operational compliance, but also providing greater socialbenefits. Improving operational CE does not necessarily mean the use of alternativetechniques. Current techniques such as face-to-face meetings are often appropriatefor the context. By enhancing their understanding of social influences on CEprocesses and outcomes, forest managers can improve their use of CE techniques,and create additional personal, social and commercial benefits. The narratives abovehighlight several important factors that influence the CE process and the quality ofdecisions made. These factors include issues of power; trust; information diversity;community context; and the practice of continual learning.
4.1. The implications of power
Power is immersed within any social situation and therefore approaches to CE needto be developed with a greater understanding of the complexities of power andpower relations (Cooke and Kothari 2001, Cornwall 2004). Critics of the currentparticipatory discourse see many participatory activities as a method of obscuringthe true ‘‘relations of power and influence between elite interests and less powerfulgroups’’ (Taylor 2001, p. 122). Power is typically found in the hands of the educated,articulate and politically adept (Hailey 2001). Within forest management, power isoften thought to be placed with the forest managers who typically make the finaldecisions, are supported by institutions and associated regulations, and have accessto more resources. In many cases community members feel powerless due to nothaving the ability to stop tree farm establishment in their area, which can be acatalyst for conflict and resentment:
Mary: When Steve said that fellow from the forestry company called and was comingover, I saw red. I knew the tree company had bought Jim’s place, but I don’t like it.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
However, the decision-making power does not rest entirely with the forest manager,who acts in accordance with prevailing regulations and, where acknowledged,previously identified social norms and values:
Paul: A poison program would be more effective and cheaper, although it will be toughto get support from this lot, with all their wind chimes and rainbow flags.
Power reflects not only the relationships between forest managers and communities,but also refers to terms of power relations in the construction of knowledge andsocial norms (Cooke and Kothari 2001). Power should not be considered to operateonly through formal mechanisms such as regulations, with local discourses aboutacceptable action often just as important, given that power is constituted throughsocial relations (Cornwall 2004). Paul’s previous experience with local people in thearea has alerted him to the likely accepted social norms and thus he is able to pre-empt acceptable management alternatives. Here the previous actions of localresidents resulted in a change in management practice despite the commercialramifications, highlighting a shift in the influence of the community within decision-making processes, despite their lack of formal decision-making power.
4.2. The building of trust
It is important to consider people’s judgements of acceptability, including commonpublic perceptions surrounding forest management practices and organisations.Perceptions are essentially risk assessments, based on prior experiences, acceptedinformation and underlying values (Bennett and Chorley 1977). People’s perceptionsinfluence the way they approach engagement opportunities, impacting on theassumptions made, the information they accept, and the emotive level of the ensuingdiscussions, as highlighted by the narratives:
Mary: Their people don’t care, they just come in, and spray their chemicals around, andthen they go home to their big city houses and never-ending clean water. Somebody hasto tell them what’s right.
In this comment, Mary is showing her negative perception of the forest managementorganisation and the forest managers themselves. Mary perceives the forestoperations as high risk, and the forest managers as being uncaring and elitist,showing little concern for the communities they impact. Mary’s bravado in ‘tellingthem’ indicates the level to which Mary sees the forest managers as risks to thecommunity; she believes that it is time to stand up and fight. This heightened level ofemotion can be common in engagement processes where there are perceived highrisks and associated low levels of trust:
Mary: Steve doesn’t understand, he is so calm and just thinks that the tree companieswill look after us. They don’t look after anyone except their shareholders!
Trust is integral to any participative decision-making process, and impacts onpeople’s perceptions of risk and acceptance of decision-making outcomes. Beierleand Cayford (2002) described trust as consisting of two components: first, thecompetence or ability to do what is right, and second, the willingness to do what is
1158 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
right, which is known as social trust. Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000) found strongnegative correlations between social trust and perceived risk regarding dangers aboutwhich people were not well informed. Low levels of social trust, as expressed byMary, exacerbate perceptions of high risk; people simply do not trust the forestmanager to make the right decision for the community.
The development of trust is one of the key goals and benefits of CE processes andis built by regular contact, personal ties and shared values (Hailey 2001). Three keyfactors often influence trust: personal interactions; knowledge and expertise; andperceptions of concern and care (Peters et al. 1997). It is important to recognise thattrust is not static and can be won or lost, depending on individual, organisationaland whole industry behaviour. A large amount of CE occurs informally as part ofeveryday interactions (Cleaver 2001, Woolcock and Brown 2005). CE activities helpto create trust, developing networks between forest managers and the community.These everyday interactions are essential as they can contribute to the building oftrust in field-based staff, even when there is little trust in the forest managementorganisation itself (Cleaver 2001, Shindler et al. 2002, Woolcock and Brown 2005). Alack of trust in forest management organisations can limit the CE activities due toincreased perceptions of risk, and whilst improved trust in individual forestmanagers can help to alleviate such concerns, this trust is rarely translated to broadertrust in the company (Shindler et al. 2002). The ongoing mistrust of the forestmanagement company, or the industry as a whole, will continue to limit CEoutcomes. Organisations would therefore benefit from acknowledging the ad hocengagement conducted by forest managers, supporting the development of suchinteractions through targeted skill development opportunities, evaluation andsupportive corporate policy frameworks. Ongoing interactions, transparent deci-sion-making processes and the adequate and timely completion of forest manage-ment actions will work to build trust in forest management organisations over time,as communities benefit from positive experiences.
4.3. Accepting and sharing information
The sharing of information is essential within any given participatory process,helping to ensure that people are able to make informed decisions (Creighton 2005,Beder 2006). It is important for forest managers conducting CE to acknowledge theexistence of differing notions of ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ amongst individuals (Chambers1997). How people feel about the information and the information providersinfluences their judgements about its social acceptability (Shindler et al. 2002).Increasing distrust of experts and institutions results in people being more likely totrust information sourced from their friends than from forest managers, regardless ofany personal expertise in the area being discussed (Shindler et al. 2002, Vanclay2004). People refer to information sources that are more compatible with their valuesand beliefs, as was shown by Mary when she sought external information sources:
Mary: I have big issues with those monoculture tree farms. I’ve read all about them onthe Internet and even went to the protest about that farm being sold to a tree farmcompany last month. Met some great people, they were really sympathetic about Jim’splace, gave me some tips on what to ask for.
Mary’s research on the Internet and interactions with people at the rally influencedand perhaps augmented her values and attitudes towards the establishment of a tree
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1159
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
farm so close to her family. Although field foresters are unlikely to attend suchevents, forest managers need to familiarise themselves with these information sourcesto better understand the information that is influencing individual attitudes. It isoften helpful to interact within these social occasions to understand the peopleinvolved, their concerns and beliefs, and to understand the information sources thatthe community deems acceptable.
Knowledge is a dynamic accumulation of social norms and practices that isdeveloped through scientific inquiry and people’s interactions with the environmentin which they live, work and play (Kothari 2001). Forest managers have beencriticised for placing a higher value and trust in scientific data, to the detriment oflocal knowledge sources (Starkloff 1998). The rejection of local knowledge decreasesthe ability of forest managers to incorporate best available knowledge into decision-making processes. By ignoring sources of knowledge that people feel are important,forest managers contribute to an increased suspicion of ‘black-box’ decision-makingprocesses and decrease the social acceptability of information and decision-makingprocesses (Shindler et al. 2002). These sources may include local knowledge, themedia, the Internet, stakeholder groups, rallies and other public events. Much likecommunity members who reject information provided by forest managers, forestmanagers might regard information from these knowledge sources as invalid due to aperceived lack of technical expertise, because the information represents a clash ofvalues and beliefs, or because they lack trust in the information provider (Schirmerforthcoming). Forest managers need to be more aware of the various forms andsources of information that exist within the community, and the limits of theinformation they provide to the public in terms of accessibility, acceptance andrelative impact.
Letters of notification are an important component of public involvement withinAustralian plantation management. Whilst such a letter could be considered as alegal compliance requirement rather than a form of CE, letter notifications are acritical step within operational CE as they are the invitation for further engagement,providing a space for concerned or interested community members to contact theforest manager. Paul’s reflection on the standard ‘Notice of Intent’ letter that is sentto neighbouring landowners highlights the limitations of some of the informationprovided by forest management organisations:
Paul: I normally like to chat with the neighbours before they get the ‘Notice of Intent’.Those bland legalistic letters do nothing for our ‘faceless giant’ profile.
Information should be shared between forest managers and the community in aneutral manner that is free of technical jargon, and is relevant to the local peopleinvolved (Carr 2002, Shindler et al. 2002, Hammersley Chambers and Beckley 2003).Consideration needs to be made regarding the appropriate language, the technicalcontent to be included, and the overall sense of ‘approachability’ implied by theletter. Can readers understand the purpose of the letter and what is expected ofthem? Does the letter invite the reader to continue beyond the first sentence, or doesthe jargon and ‘legalistic’ manner make it difficult to read? Is sufficient technicalinformation provided so the reader understands the risks associated with theoperation, yet not too much so the reader starts panicking? Does the letter providesufficient encouragement for a person with concerns to contact the forest manager,or is the wording brusque and indifferent? Such letters are often the first contact
1160 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
forest managers have with neighbours and thus can be influential in the building oftrust and perceptions about the organisation. It is therefore important that due careis put into the development of such letters to ensure that recipients are comfortablein approaching forest managers, thus initiating dialogue and the development oflong-term relationships.
4.4. Understanding the community
CE practitioners often put too much priority on the CE procedure, overlooking theimportance of the broader social relations (Whelan and Lyons 2005). Increasingvalue pluralism within Western societies has resulted in a widening of the number oflegitimate voices that need to be included in participatory processes (MacCallum2005). It is therefore imperative when conducting any form of participatorymanagement to include and consider a range of perspectives, including experts andinterested and impacted community members and those with dissenting opinions(Stolp et al. 2002, Mascarenhas and Scarce 2004). Such diversity of representationenables the ‘multiple publics’ that exist with varying values and interests to be heard,which is critical for the successful implementation of forest management policies andpractices (Shindler et al. 2002). It is necessary to adapt forest management practicesto changing social and environmental conditions because management practicesdeemed acceptable in one area may not be acceptable in another area (Shindler et al.2002, Bull and Schwab 2005).
Obtaining a representative participant base can be problematic however, asrepresentation is a constant balancing act between local and outside interests andbetween local and expert knowledge sources (Mascarenhas and Scarce 2004). Overtime stakeholders change, thus bringing new views, goals and emotions (Esteves2008). There is a need to understand fully the community in which engagement isbeing conducted to ensure appropriate stakeholders are included who represent thefull range of views. Reflection on contextual conditions can help to recognisepeople’s motivations and improve CE practices using prior experience (Shindler et al.2002). Reflexive processes are context driven, with mindsets framed by personalexperiences (Bowie and Werhane 2005). This is highlighted by Paul’s reflection onprevious forest operations within the community:
Paul: I hope that the property is an easy one, although I doubt it as the locals up hereare a dark shade of green. Last year they complained about Johnson’s place going intotrees, and that’s miles away from them.
Here, Paul is using his prior experience to make assumptions on likely communityconcerns and the impact of such concerns on management alternatives. Based on hisinitial assumptions, Paul can design his CE approach to ensure that adequateinformation is available to relieve concerns, and target his approach at relevantpeople, including those impacted and those previously identified as being interested.Initial assumptions regarding concerns also enable Paul to evaluate forest manage-ment alternatives and, if necessary, seek prior approval from managers:
Paul: I wonder what chemicals I am going to be restricted to? Given the type of peoplethese locals are, I reckon I should steer clear of aerial spraying and any triazines. It’s ashame really; the weed control is going to cost us a bucket of money.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
The capacity of forest managers to consider the situational context and viablealternatives is essential (Shindler et al. 2002). Prior acknowledgement and considera-tion of social and operational forest management consequences helps the CEpractitioner respond to community concerns. Paul’s reflection on the communityand likely concerns raised his awareness of the challenges faced, allowing him toefficiently revise forest management activities as discussions progress. Discussion withMary highlighted the high value she placed on her family and their quality of life, andfrom that understanding Paul was able pre-empt likely acceptability judgements:
Paul: After all the talk about chemicals destroying the environment and monoculturescreating biological deserts, she finally got to her point, the one that I was after when Iwalked in the door an hour and a half earlier. She has three kids and much-loved familypets and doesn’t want them to be put in any form of danger.
4.5. Acknowledging and accepting values
Participation helps to improve decision making through the development of workingrelationships that assist in the identification and understanding of the diverse valuesand interests associated with forest management (Hammersley Chambers andBeckley 2003). Values are standards by which individuals guide their behaviour andmake decisions (Rokeach 1973, in Pregernig 2001) and are influenced by anindividual’s personal ethics and training (Woolcock and Brown 2005). People’svalues are a reflection of the social influences in their lives and are shaped by thesocial contexts and norms to which they are exposed (Dietz et al. 1998). The valuespeople hold are an important social element for forest managers to consider, as theyare integral to the development of an individual’s perceptions and do not changeeasily (Pregernig 2001, Slimak and Dietz 2006). Developing understanding andrespect for the values in the community helps to develop stronger workingrelationships and helps to minimise conflicts associated with contentious forestryoperations.
Professionals are conditioned through their training, education and socialisation,which leads to ‘‘the internalisation and adoption of normal professional concepts,values, beliefs, methods and behaviours’’ (Chambers 1997, p. 79). Managers operatewithin this constructed reality, leading to management preferences that incorporatefavoured physical, financial, social and psychological values (Chambers 1997). Thisprofessional reality is shown by Steve, a fourth generation farmer:
Steve: This was a good farming area; less now that the farms up the road are going tothose ‘tree changers’. Those city slickers don’t understand the land, they move out hereto the country for the ‘lifestyle’, then just let the weeds grow and fences fall down. Worsestill, they plant vineyards, as if they are going to make any money from yet anotherboutique Chardonnay!
Steve places high value on the need to use land for productive purposes whilstmaintaining a high level of land stewardship. New residents do not value the land inthe same way he does, thus bringing change, which impacts on the wholecommunity. Similarly, Paul’s professional conditioning is apparent with a strongfocus on operational effectiveness and costs:
Paul: A poison program would be more effective and cheaper, although it will be toughto get support from this lot, with all their wind chimes and rainbow flags.
1162 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
The predominance of commercial values is common for forest managers operatingwithin a business environment. With many forest management companies beingbeholden to shareholders, the maximising of profit is a common goal. This basiccommercial reality should not be dismissed, but neither should it be an excuse forpoor CE practice and outcomes.
Further complicating the impact of professional bias and conditioning on CEoutcomes is the personal toll of conducting CE processes on the forest managers.The process of conducting CE is quite personal for both community participants andforest managers. Walking into a stranger’s house to talk about an often emotive andcontentious development can be daunting and emotionally demanding. The impactof CE on forest managers is often ignored, with the physical and emotional comfortof the community considered of higher importance. In line with the principles ofparticipation, forest managers are placed in a situation where they are told to listen,be empathetic to the community’s needs and wants, and, where possible, mediate amanagement solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is hard to be empathetic andunderstanding of people’s values and concerns when you are sustaining harshcriticism of your own values, beliefs and personal worth. It is therefore importantthat all participants within any given CE process create adequate space to be able toconsider and reflect on other peoples values and beliefs, respect the differences andtry to work together to develop acceptable outcomes. Whilst ongoing interactionscan help build the community’s capacity to actively engage, forest managers can helpto reduce this personal toll through active reflection on CE processes and by seekingsupport from peers. Forest management companies need to foster this supportthrough improved training of CE practitioners and the encouragement ofprofessionally oriented support networks for practitioners, both within the companyand externally.
4.6. Reflection and learning
Reflexivity is self-reflection on how our own values, life experiences and interestsshape our behaviour and associated outcomes. Reflexivity can help forest managersbetter understand the community’s and their own actions (and inactions) during CEprocesses:
Paul: In the end, I just shut up, it was easier that way. I drank my cuppa, wondering if itwas poisoned, and nodded politely. I suppose, thinking back, I listened better by notresponding to every little complaint. I let her talk, let her get it all off her chest.
Critically reviewing one’s own performance, as expressed by Paul where he ‘listenedand learned’, can help identify shortcomings in technique, the contexts in which theyoccur, and areas where further information is required. This reflection helps to builda body of knowledge relating to both the community context and also to the practiceof CE itself. The development and subsequent sharing of such bodies of knowledgewithin organisations and, if relevant, within industries, can help others to adapt theirengagement practices to suit the community, and improve their practices utilising thelearning of others. The regular reflection on one’s work and self-criticism amongpeer groups is a useful exercise to encourage attitude and behaviour change (Kumar2002). Some work environments do not encourage critical reflection of workperformance due to a variety of factors, including limited staff resources and
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1163
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
associated high workloads, institutional work cultures that discourage critical self-and peer-reflection, and the lack of acknowledgement of professional ‘conditioning’(Cohen 1999). Acknowledging the impacts of professional conditioning andadopting pro-active self-reflection habits are critical steps in overcoming individualand professional assumptions and biases, thus providing a better foundation for theacceptance and inclusion of others’ values, beliefs and knowledge.
5. Foundations for future CE success
Increasing socio-political pressures requires forest managers to move beyond basicconsultation processes to those that further involve communities in decision making.This paper provides an insight into the realities of implementing everyday forms ofCE within a commercial environment, highlighting key themes for considerationwhen designing and conducting operational engagement activities, and connectingthe literature with applied practices. Challenges associated with conducting CEwithin forest management, or indeed many natural resource management scenarios,include the limited CE skills of resource managers, difficulties for resource managersin overcoming issues associated with trust of their industry, and the personal toll onforest managers. Current training in forest management and other sciencedisciplines, and the internalisation of values and norms through professionalconditioning, may limit the promotion of CE processes that develop workingrelationships based on trust and mutual respect. However, the plantation forestmanagers’ preference for face-to-face meetings is a step in the right direction. Thesepersonal engagement methods provide a contextual and interactive environmentwhich can, if undertaken effectively and appropriately, promote meaningful dialoguethat is ‘‘rooted in a dynamic relationship of mutual trust and respect’’ (Hailey 2001,p. 101).
An understanding of the need for trust when working with the community isimportant in order to appreciate fully CE and its broader social benefits.Relationships based on trust develop through ongoing honest and transparentinteractions, characteristics that are important for effective CE. Many interactionsbetween forest managers and the community occur not as part of a formal process,but instead through everyday interactions, at the shop, at fire brigade meetings, andwhen picking up the children from school. These casual interactions provideexcellent opportunities to develop an understanding of shared values, networks andpriorities in a non-confronting environment, and thus should be further encouragedamongst forest managers. In addition, the knowledge gained from such chanceoccurrences should be actively incorporated into the cumulative body of knowledgeregarding that community, individual and forest management strategy.
Trust and respect is also developed through the sharing of information andacceptance of differing forms of knowledge. Whilst the training of many forestmanagers conducting CE processes heavily prioritises expert forms of knowledge,other knowledge forms are beneficial for decision making and should not bedismissed. Knowledge can be incorporated through deliberate management planningtechniques that provide scope for valuable comment from the community, includingthe early inclusion of participation in the planning process, deliberate targeting ofindividuals for their expert and local knowledge, and transparent forms of decisionmaking that enable the community to see how their concerns and knowledge wereincorporated into the final decisions made.
1164 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
The community’s social history, values and priorities all provide insights intolikely community concerns and issues. This, however, does not always require thecompletion of extensive social and economic studies; open and transparentcommunication will usually elicit the required information whilst simultaneouslyproviding opportunities for relationship building and network development. Forestmanagers need to dedicate time and effort to critically review the community inwhich they are operating, using secondary sources where available, and if necessaryundertaking primary data collection (Esteves and Vanclay 2009). A solid under-standing of the community context helps to make initial assumptions on theacceptance of forest management alternatives. Forest managers can utilise resourcesbetter through the targeting of CE efforts. Key risk locations, vulnerable or highlyconcerned stakeholders, and forest management practices perceived to be higherrisk, may require additional CE efforts. However, it should be remembered that theseinitial assumptions based on the current understanding of communities are tentative.Personal interaction and communication will better reveal people’s values, needs andgoals. It is therefore important for forest managers to be flexible, allowing spacewithin the forest management planning system for changes that better suit thecontext and the people.
It is important to recognise that there is no one solution to any given problemand that the process of developing relationships with stakeholders and subsequentimprovement in decision-making processes can often be gradual. This learningprocess can be achieved through continual evaluation and adaptation of practicalbehaviours (Woolcock and Brown 2005). As Chambers (1997, p. 100) highlighted,‘‘it is easy to criticise, to be constructive is harder’’, with the best learning achievedthrough ‘‘self-critical commitment to action, engagement with the world, to learn bydoing’’, where personal insight and reflection, self-examination and the willingness tochange is paramount. CE is a dynamic process that needs to be moulded to thecontext, the people and the skills of the forest manager; therefore every CE processundertaken could be described as an experiment. Reflexivity provides a tool to thinkback, acknowledge errors, celebrate successes, and apply new skills and informationto future CE opportunities. Whilst rarely acknowledged by forest managers as adeliberate process, many forest managers undertake processes of reflection. Thereneeds to be more encouragement of both individual forest manager reflection, andalso broader forest management organisation reflection on CE practices. Activelyconsidering the CE processes, both formal and informal, can help to improve forestmanagers’ understanding of the people they are engaging, the perceived and actualimpacts of forest management practices in the community, and also CE practices ingeneral. Sharing this learning amongst colleagues and where relevant withinindustries is also important. Making the body of knowledge available to othershelps to promote the continual improvement of CE practices within Australianforest management.
Acknowledgments
The narratives were compiled from interviews conducted with community members and forestindustry representatives, and whilst generally indicative of the issues, do not portray anyparticular person. The authors would like to thank all of the research participants for theirtime and valuable insights into community engagement within plantation forest management.They would also like to thank the Project Steering Committee for the CRC for ForestryCommunities Project whose guidance and support throughout the project was invaluable. The
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1165
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
research was funded by the CRC for Forestry. It was approved by the Human Research EthicsCommittee of the University of Tasmania (H9218). More details about the project areavailable from: http://www.crcforestry.com.au/research/programme-four/communities.
References
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 35 (4), 216–224.
Beder, S., 2006. Environmental principles and policies: an interdisciplinary approach. Sydney:UNSW Press.
Beierle, T. and Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmentaldecisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Bennett, R.J. and Chorley, R.J., 1977. Environmental systems. London: Methuen.Bowie, N. and Werhane, P., 2005. Management ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Brown, M.H. and Kreps, G.L., 1993. Narrative analysis and organizational development. In:
S.L. Herndon and G.L. Kreps, eds. Qualitative research: applications in organizationalcommunication. Creskill NJ: Hampton Press, 47–62.
Brown, A.D. and Rhodes, C., 2005. Writing responsibly: narrative fiction and organisationalstudies. Organisation, 12 (4), 505–529.
Bryman, A., 2004. Social research methods. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Bull, G. and Schwab, O., 2005. Communities and forestry in Canada: a review and analysis of
the Model Forest and Community Forest Programs. In: R.G. Lee and D.R. Field, eds.Communities and forests: where people meet the land. Corvallis: Oregon State UniversityPress, 176–192.
Carr, A., 2002. Grass roots and green tape: principles and practices of environmentalstewardship. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.
Chambers, R., 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Warwickshire, UK: ITDGPublishing.
Cleaver, F., 2001. Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches todevelopment. In: B. Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny? NewYork: Zed Books, 36–55.
Cohen, S., 1999. Promoting Eden: tree planting as the environmental panacea. Ecumene, 6 (4),424–446.
Commonwealth of Australia, 1995. National Forest Policy statement: a new focus forAustralia’s forests. 2nd ed. Canberra: AGPS.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In: B. Cooke and U.Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny? New York: Zed Books, 1–15.
Cornwall, A., 2004. Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and differencein participation in development. In: S. Hickey and G. Mohan, eds. Participation: fromtyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development.London: Zed Books, 75–91.
Creighton, J.L., 2005. The public participation handbook: making better decisions throughcitizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dare, M., Schirmer, J., and Vanclay, F., 2008. A brief guide to effective community engagementin the Australian plantations. Tech. Rep. No. 181. Hobart, Tasmania: CooperativeResearch Centre for Forestry.
Dietz, T., Stern, P., and Guagnano, G., 1998. Social structural and social psychological basesof environmental concern. Environmental behaviour, 30, 450–471.
Dyer, W.G. and Wilkins, A.L., 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate bettertheory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management review, 16 (3), 613–619.
Enticott, G. and Vanclay, F., forthcoming. The moral accountability of agricultural scripts: ananalysis of farmers’ talk about animal health risks. Health risk & society.
Esteves, A.M., 2008. Evaluating community investments in the mining sector using multi-criteria decision analysis to integrate SIA with business planning. Environmental impactassessment review, 28 (4–5), 338–348.
Esteves, A.M. and Vanclay, F., 2009. Social development needs analysis as a tool for SIA toguide corporate-community investment: applications in the minerals industry. Environ-mental impact assessment review, 29 (2), 137–145.
1166 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Eversole, R. and Martin, J., 2005. Participation and governance in regional development: globaltrends in an Australian context. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Fleming, A. and Vanclay, F., 2010. Farmer responses to climate change and sustainableagriculture. Agronomy for sustainable development, 30, 11–19.
Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, experts and the environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Gavran, M. and Parsons, M., 2010. Australia’s plantations 2010 inventory update. Canberra:
Bureau of Rural Sciences.Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Gough, C., et al., 2003. Contexts of citizen participation. In: B. Kasemir, J. Jager, C. Jaeger,
and M. Gardner, eds. Public participation in sustainability science: a handbook. CambridgeUniversity Press, 37–61.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.Hailey, J., 2001. Beyond the formulaic: process and practice in South Asian NGOs. In: B.
Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny?. New York: Zed Books, 88–101.
Hammersley Chambers, F. and Beckley, T., 2003. Public involvement in sustainable borealforest management. In: P. Burton, C. Messier, D. Smith, and W. Adamowicz, eds.Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest. Ottawa: NRC Research Press, 113–154.
Howard, G.S., 1991. Culture tales: a narrative approach to thinking, cross-culturalpsychology, and psychotherapy. American psychologist, 46 (3), 187–197.
Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking resource management. London: Routledge.International Association of Public Participation (IAP2), 2007. IAP2 spectrum of public
participation [online]. Available from: http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf [Accessed 16 September 2009].
Kothari, U., 2001. Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In: B.Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny?. New York: Zed Books, 139–168.
Kumar, S., 2002. Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners.Rugby: ITPL.
Layder, D., 1998. Sociological practice: linking theory and social research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Lee, R.G., Field, D.R., and Burch Jr, W.R., 1990. Introduction: forestry, community, andsociology of natural resources. In: R.G. Lee, D.R. Field, and W.R. Burch, eds. Communityand forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder: Westview Press, 3–14.
MacCallum, D., 2005. Consent and resistance: a case study of participatory decision making.In: D. Cryle and J. Hillier, eds. Consent and consensus: politics, media and governance intwentieth century Australia. Perth: API Network, 351–370.
Mascarenhas, M. and Scarce, R., 2004. ‘The intention was good’: legitimacy, consensus-baseddecision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia. Society and naturalresources, 17 (1), 17–38.
May, J., 2006. Ladders, stars and triangles: old and new theory for the practice of publicparticipation. International journal of market research, 48 (3), 305–319.
Peters, R., Covello, V., and McCallum, D., 1997. The determinants of trust and credibility inenvironmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk analysis, 17, 43–54.
Plantations 2020, 2002. Plantations for Australia: the 2020 vision [online]. Available from:http://www.plantations2020.com.au/vision/index.html [Accessed 23 September 2009].
Pregernig, M., 2001. Values of forestry professionals and their implications for theapplicability of policy instruments. Scandinavian journal of forest research, 16, 278–288.
Race, D. and Buchy, M., 1999. A role for community participation in Australian forestmanagement? Rural society, 9 (2), 405–419.
Ritchie, J., 2003. The applications of qualitative research to social research. In: J. Ritchie andJ. Lewis, eds. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science Students andresearchers. London: Sage, 24–46.
Ross, H., Buchy, M., and Proctor, W., 2002. Laying down the ladder: a typology of publicparticipation in Australian natural resource management. Australian journal of environ-mental management, 9 (4), 205–217.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1167
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Schirmer, J., 2002. Plantation forestry disputes: case studies on concerns, causes, processes andpaths for resolution. Tech. Rep. No. 42. Hobart, Tasmania: Cooperative Research Centrefor Sustainable Production Forestry.
Schirmer, J., 2008. Forestry, jobs and spending: forest industry employment and expenditure inWestern Australia, 2005–2006. Tech. Rep. No. 189. Hobart, Tasmania: CooperativeResearch Centre for Forestry.
Schirmer, J., forthcoming. Engaging with scientific data: making it meaningful. In: H. Aslinand S. Lockie, eds. Engaged environmental citizenship. Canberra: CDU Press and ANUE-Press.
Shindler, B., Brunson, M., and Stankey, G., 2002. Social acceptability of forest conditions andmanagement practices: a problem analysis. Portland: US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service.
Siegrist, M. and Cvetkovich, G., 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust andknowledge. Risk analysis, 20 (5), 713–719.
Silvasti, T., 2003a. The cultural model of ‘the good farmer’ and the environmental question inFinland. Agriculture and human values, 20 (2), 143–150.
Silvasti, T., 2003b. Bending the borders of gendered labour division on farms: the case ofFinland. Sociologica ruralis, 43 (2), 154–166.
Slimak, M. and Dietz, T., 2006. Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Riskanalysis, 26 (6), 1689–1705.
Starkloff, R., 1998. Industrial forestry and resource conflict: the discourse on pine plantationsin Sri Lanka. Sabaragamuwa University journal, 1 (1), 93–116.
Stolp, A., et al., 2002. Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value judgements inenvironmental impact assessment. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 20 (1), 11–23.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Taylor, H., 2001. Insights into participation from critical management and labour processperspectives. In: B. Cooke and U. Kothari, eds. Participation: the new tyranny?. NewYork: Zed Books, 122–138.
Tonts, M. and Schirmer, J., 2005. Managing social conflict in the timber plantation industry:building consensus or deepening divisions. In: D. Cryle and J. Hillier, eds. Consent andconsensus: politics, media and governance in twentieth century Australia. Perth: APINetwork, 275–296.
Vanclay, F., 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion ofnatural resource management. Australian journal of experimental agriculture, 44 (3), 213–222.
Vanclay, F., Silvasti, T., and Howden, P., 2007. Styles, parables and scripts: diversity andconformity in Australian and Finnish agriculture. Rural society, 17 (1), 3–18.
Vitz, P.C., 1990. The use of stories in moral development: new psychological reasons for anold education method. American psychologist, 45 (6), 709–720.
Whelan, J. and Lyons, K., 2005. Community engagement or community action: choosing notto play the game. Environmental politics, 14 (5), 596–610.
Woolcock, G. and Brown, V., 2005. Principles of community engagement: from the literatureson natural resource management, local community development, human services andsustainability. Report Commissioned by the Department of Environment & Heritage,Canberra.
1168 Melanie (Lain) Dare et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 13:
56 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
