Administrators and Citizens: Measuring Agency Officials' Efforts to Foster and Use Public Input in Forest Policy

Koontz, Tomas M.

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024410

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IDTLs' beliefs about public involvement were categorized into four primary points of view (Table 1). Substantive public involvement most closely reflects agency guidance that public comments should be "substantive," or focused on incorporating points of fact from the public into agency analyses (Dietz and Stern, 2008;Koontz, 1999;Predmore et al, 2011a). Meanwhile, normative public involvement focuses on incorporating values, opinions, and preferences of the public into agency decision-making (Innes and Booher, 2004;Predmore et al, 2011a).…”

Section: Internal Relationship Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, normative public involvement focuses on incorporating values, opinions, and preferences of the public into agency decision-making (Innes and Booher, 2004;Predmore et al, 2011a). An instrumental view (Dietz and Stern, 2008;Innes and Booher, 2004;Koontz, 1999) of public involvement is reflected by a single agree/disagree statement: "Public involvement processes should aim to achieve public buy-in for the proposed action." Another single agree/disagree item represented a fourth point of view: "Public involvement is a procedural requirement that rarely contributes meaningfully to making better land management decisions.…”

Section: Internal Relationship Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Stern

Predmore

Morse

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires U.S. Forest Service planning processes to be conducted by interdisciplinary teams of resource specialists to analyze and disclose the likely environmental impacts of proposed natural resource management actions on Forest Service lands. Multiple challenges associated with these processes have been a source of frustration for the agency. One of these challenges involves administrative appeals through which public entities can challenge a Forest Service decision following a NEPA process. These appeals instigate an internal review process and can result in an affirmation of the Forest Service decision, a reversal of that decision, or additional work that re-initiates all or part of the NEPA process. We examine the best predictors of appeals and their outcomes on a representative sample of 489 Forest Service NEPA processes that were decided between 2007 and 2009. While certain factors associated with pre-existing social contexts (such as a history of controversy) or pre-determined elements of a proposed action (such as the extraction of forest products) predispose certain processes to a higher risk of appeals, other practices and process-related strategies within the control of the agency also appear to bear meaningful influence on the occurrence of appeals and their outcomes. Appeals and their outcomes were most strongly related to programmatic, structural (turnover of personnel in particular), and relationship risks (both internal and external) within the processes, suggesting the need for greater focus within the agency on cultivating positive internal and external relationships to manage the risk of appeals.

show abstract

Section: Internal Relationship Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Internal Relationship Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Stern

Predmore

Morse

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Plurality and participation have received much attention in forest policy design and implementation. Empirical work with this focus has also addressed integration of conservation with forest management (Eckerberg 1990, Koontz 1999, Appelstrand 2002, Primmer and Kyllönen 2006, Davenport et al 2007, Koontz and Bodine 2008, Raitio 2008). …”

Section: Implementation Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These professionals and their organizations have an important role in adjusting their practices also according to the goals of their clientele (Koontz 1999, Davenport et al, 2007, Fernandez-Gimenez et al 2008). More generally, professionals and organizations learn and develop the ways to combine their own goals with the evolving policy and social demand , Argyris and Schön 1996, Larsen and Nielsen 2007.…”

Section: Implementation Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the policy implementation literature draws little on the notions of institutional analysis of organizationsThe frictions that I identifi ed have been detected also in earlier analyses of forest policy and of attempts to conserve biodiversity in the forest sector. These studies have noted the complexity of both the policy target and the implementation context (Butler and Koontz 2005, Koontz and Bodine 2008, Schultz 2008, the attention to the often contradicting expectations of plural constituents , Koontz 1999, as well as the professional and organizational goals and practices (Eckerberg 1986, Twight and Lyden 1988, Koontz 1999. To add value to the mere acknowledging of these complexities, I propose the institutions framing and interfering in policy implementation to be worthy of explicit attention.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Institutional Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating biodiversity conservation into forestry: an empirical analysis of institutional adaptation

Eeva¹

2010

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation Implications

2013

Food Webs and Biodiversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ii COPYRIGHT © 2005 BY MARY MALLINSON LONG ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my parents, Howatt and Sandy Mallinson, the first to instill in me the appreciation, respect and love for nature; to my husband, Herman, for his humor, patience, love and unwavering support; and to our daughter, Jessica, for providing inspiration through her spirited determination and quest for knowledge. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have contributed in their own unique way to help this thesis come to fruition, beginning with my major professor, Dr. David Ostermeier. His knowledge, wisdom, guidance and confidence in my abilities have been tremendously helpful, both to me personally and to this research. I greatly appreciate the efforts and assistance given by my committee member, Dr. Mark Fly, for his patience and guidance on the survey and involved statistics. Dr. Sherry Cable, the third member of my committee, was helpful in various aspects of this work, and I am grateful for her insights and assurances. Becky Stephens and April Griffin at the University of Tennessee Human Dimensions Research Lab were extremely helpful, along with Dr. Mark Fly, with mailing, tabulating and crosstabulating the surveys. I am deeply appreciative of Tennessee State Parks Planner Nancy Dorman for her willingness to answer questions, provide public documents, clarify information and review my writings for historical accuracy. I am also thankful to Tennessee State Parks Natural and Cultural Resource Management Director Charlie Tate for allowing me to sit in on staff meetings and get a feel for current and future state park efforts.

show abstract

Administrators and Citizens: Measuring Agency Officials' Efforts to Foster and Use Public Input in Forest Policy

Cited by 33 publications

References 9 publications

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Integrating biodiversity conservation into forestry: an empirical analysis of institutional adaptation

Conservation Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About