This is a summary of Chapter 4 of Integrated Watershed Management (Heathcote, 2008). Its title is "The Consultation Process".

1. Ch. 4. The Consultation Process
Seoul National University of Science and Technology
Professor Eun-Sung Chung

2. 4.1 The need for public
involvement
• 35yrs ago- public involvement was seen
as unnecessary and superfluous.
• Even 20 yrs ago, meaningful public
involvement was rare in the development
of public policy.
• Yet today the public voice is heard
routinely and, indeed, is mandated by
law in many jurisdictions
2Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

3. 4.1 The need for public
involvement
• Bruce Bishop (1970) suggested that water
resources planning is in fact a process of
creating a program for social change
• This concept is consensus
• He emphasized not on the end product of
planning but also on the planning process
“in order to produce a product of planning
but also on the planning process
• He believes that water development is also
an instrument of social change because of
its ability to alter social and economic
growth patterns.

4. • There is no question that the trend toward
openness has accelerated since the 1970s.
• Governments learned they could save time and
money by dealing with public concerns early in
the project.
• Failure could lead to fierce and prolonged public
opposition, causing costly delays or even forcing
abandonment.
• Action forcing provisions in the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 S. 102(2)(b)
The agencies of the Federal government
shall…identify and develop methods and
procedures…which shall ensure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values
may be given appropriate consideration in
decision-making, along with economic and
technical considerations

5. • And a companion section S. 102(2)(c)
All agencies of the Federal Government shall
… include in every recommendation or report
on proposals for legislation and other major
Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed
statement … on (i) the environmental impact
… (ii) adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided … (iii) the alternatives to
the proposed action … (iv) the relationship
between local short-term uses … and … long-
term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources.

6. • It can be argued that with these few
sentences Congress not only changed
government’s preparedness in advancing
public projects but also vastly increased
the transparency and accountability of
the decision-making process.
• Later amendments to the US Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and similar
legislation included clear mention of the
need of public participation in water
management, especially with respect to
the setting of standards and priorities.

7. • Indeed, Davies (2001) notes that we may actually
be experiencing a renaissance in public
involvement, after the 1990s disenchantment
with the high costs and time involved in many
such processes. Recent emphasis on government
“downsizing” and deregulation has not reversed
this trend.
• Delli Priscoli (1982) notes that as adversarial
positions became entrenched, participants
increasingly turned to litigation to resolve their
conflicts, with the result that extreme positions
solidified, progress slowed or halted, and costs
escalated still further.
• Wang and Wan Wart (2007) state unequivocally
that public participation enhances pubic trust,
especially when it is backed by administrative
integrity and accountability.

8. 4.2 Principles of consultation
4.2.1 Watershed planning in a pluralistic society
• In democratic society, public decisions
should reflect broad social values, and
changing policy should equally reflect
changing values
• Watershed plan should not be
considered a “product” but rather a
process of achieving social change
8Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

9. • Typology of change processes (from
Bishop, 1970)
Intentional Goal
Setting
No Intentional Goal
Setting
Mutual goal setting Planned change Interactional change
Bureaucratic
(unilateral) goal
setting
Technocratic change Change without goals

10. • Duram and Brown (1999) found that the
public participation is most important in
the planning stage, including clarifying and
prioritizing issues.
• Konisky and Beierle (2001) agree that the
most effective processes involve the public
prior to decision making, as compared to
“notice and comment” opportunities and
public hearings, which often occur after
decisions have already been made.
• Webler and Tuler (2001) suggested that
unclear planning goals can actually be
used to disadvantage certain participants or
question the legitimacy of certain types of
information, thus heightening current
tensions rather than relieving them.

11. Typical sequence of public involvement in
water resources planning
1. Problem awareness
2. Desire for change
3. Establishment of change process
4. Diagnosis of the system
5. Community goal setting
6. Development of alternative for change
7. Selection of preferred alternatives
8. Stabilization of change
9. Maintenance and monitoring

12. 4.2.2 Meaning of involvement
• German et al. (2006) define three general stages of
public participation in watershed management
• Participation in problem definition
– Important for defining planning objectives and methods, and
for establishing and linking key research questions
• Participation in planning
– Essentially a process of negotiation among stakeholder groups,
including regulators, either for a general watershed action
plan or for resolution of specific issues
• Participation in implementation
– Ideally characterized by an inclusive social learning process,
including development of effective monitoring and evaluation
strategies
12Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

13. Fig. 4.2 Styles of public involvement
(ladder of participation)
13
Degrees of
citizen
participation
8
Citizen
control
• Fully privatized water management institutions and
infrastructure
7
Delegated
power
• Independent river basin commissions with citizen
members
6 Partnership
• Citizen involvement in municipal land use planning
and water
management committees
Degrees of
tokenism
5 Placation
• Minor modification of plans to appease residents’
concerns
4 Consultation
• Information meetings and open houses
• Community consultation groups involving resident
participant
3 Informing • Developer-produced community newsletters
Non-
participation
2 Therapy
• Community liaison positions funded by developers
1 Manipulation
• Biased media coverage (“spin”)
• Resident action groups established by developers
IncreasingCitizenPower
Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

14. • The most critical factors in effective
public participation are the followings
(p106-107):
– Before the process begins
– Plan administration
– Data collection and analysis
– Communication
• What is the role of Fact vs Opinion
(emotion) in a public involvement
process
– Refer to the paragraph in p108.

15. 4.2.3 Designing a public involvement strategy
Basic principles of public involvement
Step 1: Formulate the general problem or issue to be discussed
Step 2: Decide why you need to involve the public. Are you trying
to build consensus? Gather information? Give notice of an
impending action? State the goals of the process clearly
Step 3: Decide who should be asked to participate
Step 4: Choose one or more techniques appropriate for the goal(s)
of your process and carry them out
Step 5: Review and analyze the results of your processes and
decide whether your goals have been met
Step 6: Repeat steps 1-5 if your goals have not been met, or if the
project has entered a new stage with new goals
15Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

16. 4.3 Identifying interested publics
• Three ways to identify interested publics
– Self-identification (voluntary or to express opposition)
– Third-party identification (e.g. existing committees are
used to generate suggestions as to individuals and
organizations who would be appropriate participants)
– Staff identification; identification of potential
participants by project staff based on surveys,
consultation with other agencies, or analysis of data
on community composition, associations, user
groups,…
16Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

17. How to solicit participants in a
public involvement program
• Open invitation:
– Public meeting; Small-scale plans; Close-knit
communities
• Selection by application
– Remedial action plan
• Limited invitation to potential opinion
leaders
– Participation from key public and private
organizations
17Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

18. Finding leaders
• Positional leaders hole elected or
appointed positions at a rank that implies
influence over their constituencies
• Reputational leaders are those who are
generally thought to be the key decision
makers in the community.
• Decisional leaders have demonstrated their
leadership in earlier community decisions.
18Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

19. Limiting the number of
participants
• Ideally, however, working committees
should never be larger than 30 people,
with 20 or fewer a much more desirable
size
• Smaller committees are better able to
build strong working relationship and
produce useful outcomes.
19Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

20. Policy profiling: Forecasting outcomes
1. Identify the issue to be decided (should be a clear and
explicit definition using terms such as “restrict”, “permit”, or
“build” rather than “improve”, or “protect”
2. Identify the individuals, groups, and organizations that
should be included in making the decision
3. Group together participants with the same economic
interests, such as developers. Do not group participants
with similar veto power, especially government participants.
Do not group participants whose position on the issue
differs or whose power in the decision-making process will
vary significantly
4. Structure the grouping so that the actual power distribution
is reasonably well reflected. Do not include an unreasonable
proportion of participants from one sector, thus skewing
the power structure unnaturally
20Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

21. 5. For each actor, estimate:
– Issue position: score support using numerical values such as +1,
+2, and +3 to indicate support; 0 to indicate neutrality; and -1, -2,
and -3 to indicate opposition. Larger numbers indicate more
extreme positions.
– Power, expressed as a number from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no
power or influence and 3 reflects substantial influence or veto
power.
– Salience, expressed as a number from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no
interest or concern for the issue and 3 indicates participants who
consider the issue to be of the very highest priority.
6. Calculate the weights for each participant group
and the whole system by multiplying issue
position times power times salience for each, then
calculating total positive scores and negative
scores.
21Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

22. Policy profiling: Forecasting
outcomes (3)
7. Calculate the policy profile ratio, the net weight
between those supporting and those opposing the
decision under discussion. Coplin et al.(1983) note
that this ratio in a sense is a measure of the
political benefits and costs of the decision. A ratio
greater than 1.00 indicates net benefit(net
community agreement) from a political and social
point of view, while a value less than 1.00 indicates
a net cost. A value of 1.00 reflects an equal
balance of benefits and costs.
22Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

23. Fig. 4.3 Example of policy profile
23
Issue: Whether or not to issue a general permit concerning residential
landfill operations
Actors Positio
n
Power Salienc
e
Positive Zero Negative
1 City Government 3 X 2 x 3 = 18
2 County Government 3 X 1 X 1 = 3
3 State Government 1 X 2 X 1 = 2
4 US Fish and Wildlife -2 X 3 X 2 = -12
5 US EPA -2 X 3 X 2 = -12
6 Land Developers 3 X 1 X 2 = 6
7 Environmental Groups 1 X 1 X 3 = 3
8 Local landowners -1 X 2 X 3 = -6
9 Waste handling companies 3 X 1 X 3 = 9
Total Scores X X = 41 -30
Policy profile Ratio = Positive Scores/Negative Scores = 41/30 = 1.37
Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

24. Fig. 4.4 Power versus interest grid
Federal Government
City Government
Environmental Groups
Neighborhood
Association
Power
Interest

25. 4.4 Public involvement techniques
and processes
4.4.1 Defining the purpose of the involvement
– The number of people who should be involved
– The type of people who should be involved
– The room layout that will best accomplish the goals
of the event
– The best public involvement technique for the
purpose of the event
25Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

26. Techniques for information
dissemination
• Table 4.2
• Public information meeting
• Open house
• Permanent information center
• Newsletters
• Information brochures
• Newspaper articles
• Television and radio coverage
26Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

27. Techniques for receiving
information
• Table 4.3
• Public hearing
• Surveys
• Key informant interviews
27Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

28. Two-way communication
techniques
• Table 4.4
• Community presentation
• Joint field trips
• Working committee
• Workshops
• Public meeting
• Litigation
• Exchange of views by correspondence
• Television or radio phone-in programs
• Environmental ombudsman or advocate
• Public cleanup events
• Telephone hot line
28Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

29. Small-group discussion process
• Brainstorming
• Delphi process
• Breakout groups
• Values clarification exercise
• Circle process
• Role playing
• Simulation
29Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

30. Organizational consideration
30
Proponent
Steering
Committee
(senior
bureaucrats)
Steering
Committee
(senior
bureaucrats)
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Water
Quality
Public
Advisory
Committee
Hydrology
Infrastructure
Computer
modeling
Human
Health
Habitat
Fisheries
Wildlife
Newsletter
Media
Outreach
Public
Meetings
Public
Activities
Executive
Level
Technical
Level
Subcommittee
Level
Figure 4.7 A typical two-tier advisory committee structure
Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

31. Conflict resolution (Alternative
dispute process)
• Typical conflict resolution process
– Representatives from a range of
constituencies-agencies, public interest
groups, industries, or whatever groups are
involved in the dispute-are invited to attend
a retreat over one or more days.
• … (Refer to the Textbook)
31Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung

32. 4.5 Evaluating the results
• Include all relevant perspectives
• Empower the people’s engagement
• Invoke multiple forms of knowing (stories,
facts, principles, reason, intuition, and
compassion)
• Ensure high-quality dialogue
• Establish ongoing participatory processes
• Use positions and proposals as grist (i.e.,
explore underlying assumptions, interests,
needs, values, visions, etc)
• Help people feel fully heard
32Prof. Chung, Eun-Sung