"You Said It" Survey

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the topic of stakeholder involvement. Your input not only guides the content of our little newsletter. It educates, motivates and inspires us.

Click on the chart for an enlarged view.

Not surprisingly, 97% of you believe that stakeholder involvement should be an integral part of conservation planning, ecological restoration and regenerative design. When asked to explain your opinion, here’s what some of you had to say:

• To generate cooperation and ownership with the project
• Yes, but as I have been involved with Stakeholders in the past, involvement must be productive. Members of a stakeholders group must understand objectives and outcomes for not achieving respective objectives.
• I think it is important because sustainability of any project rely heavily on the involvement of the stakeholders. it may be impossible to achieve a common view on restoration with the diverse views of stakeholders, but it is possible to reach a compromise which may be close to the original idea/goal.
• The people who live with the existing (problem) environment may have expert knowledge and insight into the solution generating process that may result in an improved solution. They will also have to live with the solution.
• I guess we need to ask ourselves the question, what is the likelihood that a restoration project will be successful without connection to it's surrounding landscape unless it is supported by those who live in that landscape. We tried to address this question in Eric Higgs course "Nature by Design" in the Restoration of Natural Systems Program at the University of Victoria. Our discussions lead us to the conclusion that restoration without focal participation is unlikely to be highly successful. Focal participation spurs community responsibility and involvement on the part of civic body and community. Restoration is an act of building community health whether that is natural or community and by doing so improves the chances of success.

Two brave souls offered an opinion as to why stakeholder involvement should not be an integral part of the ecological restoration, conservation planning and regenerative design process, saying:

• Persons claim to be stakeholders when they are just out for their own agenda.
• Because first you have to determine what is the best design in terms of engineering standards, environment protection, etc. I've seen stakeholder involvement where everyone is asked what they want and it is an unrealistic pie-in-the-sky pseudo-democratic exercise that leads to everyone getting what they want so no one really gets what they want including those who want to protect ecological integrity.

88% of you believe that all sectors of society and disciplines should be included in conservation, restoration and regenerative design initiatives that affect them. Here is how some of you elaborated on your response:

• For ethical and pragmatic reasons--an essential element of restoration is to restore the relationships between humans and natural systems. Failure to engage people, particularly marginalized ones, may lead to inefficient policies or sabotage. "Experts" often lack local knowledge of how places have changed through time.
• As an Indigenous person, I understand the relationship between the health of the people and the health of the land. I also understand the cycle of oppression and how that has been a barrier to applying our wisdom and knowledge about the land. Indigenous and other peoples have been displaced as a result of this oppression which is directly related to our non-involvement in resource management decision-making processes. I believe that engaging grassroots people who have demonstrated a commitment and ability to care for the land in conservation, restoration or regenerative design initiatives will encourage more people to take responsibility of the issues. The only challenges … are the communication barriers.
• Yes, if they choose to participate … and have meaningful input based on rational thought, not emotion. Too often, emotion overrules logic in conservation planning strategies when coming from displaced persons.
• They live in, with and from ecosystems too!
• If by "the displaced and powerless" you mean lower-income people, then yes they should be involved, but it's not realistic to expect that they can be involved unless they are somehow paid and trained to be stakeholders. If by "powerless" you mean any of us whose vote doesn't count because developer dollars have taken over our County's land use planning and regulatory system, then that's a whole different kettle of fish.
• Involvement leads to education leads to ownership leads to stewardship
• The success of the project may lie with these folks. Or, you may find that these people are the sparkplugs to help bring others on-board
• Invariably the initiatives will involve the expenditure of tax money, so it is imperative to give the taxpayers the feeling that they have some say in these decisions. It is important for the stakeholders to have some sort of investment in the initiative so that it succeeds. Stakeholders will ensure that the initiative is followed through to the end.
• It is often the displaced and powerless that end up with the worst habitat.
• However, in practice this is extraordinarily difficult. How do you get the "displaced and powerless" to participate? How do you even find them? They are not likely to show up at many community group meetings.
• Sustainability of restoration ultimately rests on such inclusion
• Environmental issues either directly or indirectly affect or impact everyone. Those who are displaced and/or powerless are gaining some ground with say in what could happen to them. That is how the environmental justice movement started, and environmental justice issues are key and could be relevant to planning for future conservation, restoration or regenerative efforts.
• On-going success of any project depends on maintenance, upkeep, and the concepts of personal responsibility and ownership.

Those of you who answered “no” explained your responses:

• In an ideal world this would be yes. How are you going to contact the displaced and powerless and what is your definition for those terms. that is why my answer is no. your question sounds like it is biased with some sort of preconceived agenda item that you need data to back up
• I believe while it is noble to solicit input from all people, I have found that many do not have a full understanding of the issues. It is very important to get input from people who can effect the decision to do something.
• If they are not going to pay for it why should they have a vote
• Too much time to make that happen. Funds available to implement projects do not allow for this level of effort.
• Often, multiple partners in the design phase of projects clutters and slows the process.
• Most of them are not interested. To try to force participation leads to impasse. They should be offered the opportunity to participate, but to say that are to be included may be counterproductive.

Click on the chart for an enlarged view.

Despite the fact that most of you think stakeholder inclusion should be integral, only 23% of you say your current projects, research efforts and programs truly empower all stakeholders. Many of you cited “lack of time and money” as barriers to stakeholder involvement. Here are some other interesting comments:

• Meetings are difficult for getting attendance or representation from those who perhaps might have valuable input. This is due to a number of factors, including busy lives…lack of concern …until something catastrophic occurs
• Sometimes the client is leery of what might be opened up as a result.
• We cannot fully "empower" all non-governmental stakeholders, as some cannot understand the full complexity of decisions to be made, and some simply burden the process with so much comment that no forward progress can be made. However, collaborative planning is generally a productive process, as long as facilitators hold all to an agenda and put limitations on the length of participation.
• Typically, our projects or efforts with stakeholders involve more affluent, educated folks. These are the groups with the leisure time to donate to a cause. The displaced or powerless are typically struggling to make ends meet and don't have time to worry about a project that doesn't create income and pay the bills.
• We have not used our resources to identify all sectors, only those that are most likely to move the objectives forward.
• Yes. We must as part of our recently negotiated Consent Decree with EPA.
• Disenfranchised stakeholders rarely are engaged and as a result are largely unaware of restoration & conservation efforts UNLESS it directly confronts their need for employment, housing, & a clean environment.
• Because I don't know how.
• Our team has spent most of our time discussing and documenting our land use principles with community members which we hope can be used to guide decision making in and ecosystem based land use plan. While I believe the process of discussing and documenting the principles is giving a voice to the most dedicated and committed grassroots people in the community and therefore facilitating symbolic healing and pride for those who would otherwise not be included, there are still many more people that need to be pulled in.
• We have no process to identify the disenfranchised user.
• It is usually difficult to engage and empower all the stakeholders, especially the disenfranchised. Need better tools and more time to reach them in a way that they will respond. Part of the difficulty is locating the right messenger to the receiver.
• NO. As much as efforts are made, some sectors of the community wish not to participate.
• It's a lot of work to hold a community meeting and unless you canvas the community personally with flyers, there's no way to reach many people. That's a fairly dangerous activity, plus time-prohibitive.
• Most often the restoration efforts I have observed do not because of their inability to reach all stakeholders in the time allotted. ..At times there is a lack of trust between the neighbors and the government or a tribe and the government … there are times when restorationists do not trust stakeholders.
• We make a concerted effort to do outreach to persons and jurisdictions that would be affected by our projects. We have established a successful in-house program that consistently includes strong participation by stakeholders and resource users.
• It’s hard to do well. It's not required, so clients aren't ready to support. It’s messy.

Click on the chart for an enlarged view.

57% of you believe that your projects, research efforts and programs do not ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the range of possible alternatives, opportunities, costs and benefits offered by your work. Many of you again mentioned lack of funding and time. Some of you had other explanations:

• Usually there are disagreements over the use and benefits of a resource. Rarely do people want what is best for the resource or the general population. Most have some sort of personal interest or benefit. Therefore, you rarely get to present the entire set of opportunities.
• We're working on it but it takes time to get a good infrastructure in place.
• I tell them the version I want them to hear, it's not up to them to choose it, I'm the expert.
• No because usually all stakeholders are not aware of the possible alternatives even when they are presented with them because often there are powerful stakeholders with preexisting biases.
• We are working on a shoestring budget. …our constraint is not lack of a social justice -- eco justice consciousness. Our constraint is that we are extremely time and staff limited. Given our limitations, we only have the ability to work with those who are organized and who are interested in our issues. We are not able to do the community organizing and education that it would take to bring these groups in to the ecological planning and advocacy realm.
• Perhaps one reason why not lies in wanting to avoid conflicts and slowing down the 'process'. Because disenfranchised people are so infrequently engaged they often take any opportunity to participate in decision making to address a whole array of needs, many of which are distantly relevant to the project at hand. Many times such an experience doesn't lead to further and more frequent communication by the project 'leaders' but rather an effort to get projects 'under the radar' to avoid what's perceived as a 'distraction' from the process.
• Even going door to door, we find people unwilling to listen or even give us the opportunity to speak.
• Lack of a formal process for public involvement.
• Impossible. You can present the top 3, but even then, environmental work is more complex that the average person can grasp.
• Hard to communicate - the legal processes that control the work are not designed to communicate. There is a perceived, if not actual liability in full communication as well.

Those of you who say your projects do ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the alternatives, opportunities, costs and benefits associated with your work say:

• All efforts are a matter of public record and are announced in advance via local news media. In addition, most stakeholders "subscribe" to list serves or newsletters in which projects are announced. This is from our end. I cannot state whether each individual stakeholder pays attention.
• Advertising is completed, but door-to-door consultation is not.
• We listen to the stakeholders because they are most frequently the regular stewards or caregivers of a site.
• For those who are involved, we try to offer full disclosure to see if there are any synergistic possibilities amongst the options.
• Federal law requires notice
• We are just embarking on a huge stakeholder effort and have hired an outside facilitator to help get the issues in a comprehensive educational format and process.
• Publicize through neighborhood associations and local schools
• I believe it is my responsibility to do this because a decision to proceed on a project must have broad range support, be for the public good and be attainable.
• Awareness of the work in this project area is a goal of our conservation efforts
• Generally because our clients are required to lay all of that out.
• We make every effort to be involved via networking, volunteering for committees, etc. in order to educate the people about the land.
• We have established certain committees by which stakeholders can participate and is presented the range of information on alternatives, opportunities, cost and benefits, etc.

Despite your doubts about the feasibility of involving stakeholders, 68% of you say you have been involved with conservation, restoration and/or regenerative design work that has done so successfully. We asked for more information and links and you provided them:

• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan http://www.evergladesplan.org/
• www.canaanvi.org
• www.muskegonlake.org
• Several eco-charrettes, the most significant of which involved the adaptive use of a decommissioned power plant in Austin, TX
• Norfolk Environmental Commission, did a good job of including their community in the design process a year ago.
• www.nau.edu/~envsci/cp_scb/nov05_abstracts.doc Long, J., A. Tecle, and B. Burnette. Cultural foundations for ecological restoration on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. Ecology and Society 8(1): 4. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art4
• We are currently working on stewardship agreements with private landowners to protect and/or restore important ecological features of our community located on private lands. We have also been involved in community mapping projects that provided open house workshops for all the community stakeholders to map the important features of the community.
• In the on-going efforts to restore the West Duwamish greenbelt in Seattle WA, we have, I think, brought many members of the neighboring communities to work in and learn about their urban forest. We do so through monthly work parties that begin with an urban forest ecology workshop and hands on demonstration of invasive removal and native planting techniques.
• I was involved in a couple of environmental justice initiatives in the 1990s. One of them involved a national Clean Water Network coalition that collectively drafted a bill that became known as the "Norton Urban Watershed Restoration Bill." The bill was stellar in concept and was developed in conjunction with environmental justice activists and networks. However, even under a Democratic Administration, the bill went nowhere.
• Earthlinks is an organization that focuses on working with homeless and disenfranchised individuals. But it takes place on a very micro scale.
• I was involved in a watershed demonstration project where the local watershed group was the driving force and had the agencies/organizations reporting to them on progress and status.
• The Watershed Enhancement Program in Montgomery County (MD) had the support of nearly all the communities in the county.
• I have cooperatively worked with the Boy Scouts of America with endangered species conservation
• The National Aquarium in Baltimore's Center for Aquatic Life and Conservation keeps community groups informed and has had several articles written about it. But that's not reaching the "displaced and powerless". The closest I came to catching everyone was an Eastern Shore (MD) water/sewer project. We were required by law to reach every single homeowner and in one town not a single family worked, many did not have phones, and some couldn't read. A mailing was followed up by door-to-door info drop-off/conversation conducted by a volunteer. Impossible and impractical to achieve for every project.
• A project called "re-connect" which brings restoration and students together on the land with Traditional Knowledge Keepers.
• http://www.riverinstitute.org/cfars_web_pages/projects.html A CAFO, large municipality, local watershed group, and agricultural community all worked together to implement a project (without any major fights).
• I participated with a small sustainable development group on a peasant-led mangrove restoration project in El Salvador. Foundation for Self-Sufficiency in Central America (FSSCA) assisted in an effort to remember slain Archbishop Oscar Romero with the planting of a million trees. FSSCA is a Non Governmental Organization in Round Rock, Texas and San Salvador with 3 staff. They obtain technical assistance and grants for peasant-led projects (sponsored by La Coordinadora) in rural El Salvador that have an environmental component or meet a crisis need. FSSCA continues with their Romero Tree project. For a $10 contribution to FSSCA, a mangrove will be planted in El Salvador’s Local Zone of Peace with a tribute to Romero and a tag with the donor’s name or name of a person to be remembered. Trees can be donated as gifts and have the recipients name attached. For information see web page: http://fssca.net/romero/index.html La Coordinadora - Peasant Organization in 86 villages (32,000 people) in El Salvador. They have a staff of Salvadoran agronomists and engineers to provide technical assistance. Decisions on projects are made “bottom-up” from the peasant communities. … The peasant organization associated with La Coordinadora is the Red Mangrove Association. Young people volunteer to walk the beaches picking up red mangrove propagules that float in with the tides and plant them in a restoration site…the restored areas have special significance for people in communities near them. These people have ownership in the reforestation effort and can provide long-term protection. The “ bottom-up” model used in El Salvador might have applications in Northwest USA in the following areas:
  • Incorporate community involvement in the restoration effort.
  • Provide memorial grove– where people can plant or have a native tree planted in a loved one’s honor.
  • Allow a local group/school to adopt a portion to monitor.
  • Trees or groves planted with special meaning will be protected by the people planting them and less likely to be converted to other uses.
  • Opportunities may exist to work with Native American peoples to restore native vegetation that has cultural as well as biological value.
• The Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project in Talbot County, MD is a very successful island restoration project, which received a Presidential Award and is up for nomination for another environmental award. Stakeholders involved include the public at large, local residents in proximity to the project, and watermen. The Army Corps of Engineers, as well as other Federal and state resource agencies, and academic institutions are also involved.
• I volunteer with the Gorge Waterway Initiative, a consortium of twenty community groups concerned with the Gorge Waterway and Portage Inlet in Victoria, BC. Lots of local people involved through these groups. The Selkirk Project to demonstrate seawall removal successfully involved many people

Half of you have been involved with a project in which stakeholder involvement was a hindrance to your work. Here are some examples:

• Projects where commercial and tribal fishing interest were concerned about loss of net access caused loss of one restoration site and created difficulties for another. Property rights movement and those who are opposed to public ownership of land made restoration of land difficult. One effort was scrapped and two others were significantly delayed. Hunting and bird watching members have opposed and reduced extent of estuary restoration projects on diked tideland. Kayakers have opposed log jams being put back to restore rivers. Oftentimes the people who you expect to be your allies oppose the restoration effort because of their perceived concern about loss of access or recreation.
• I learned a new term recently, CAVE--Citizens Against Virtually Everything
• There was opposition to a rails-to-trails project, and we tried very hard to work with them, but all they wanted to do was to halt the entire project, not look at alternatives around their property. Our group went underground, and worked quietly, and once the property was purchased, and the trail construction began, no one heard any more from them.
• Establishing the Loxahatchee River MFL was very difficult because the stakeholders were frustrated with the lack of restoration progress for the river and wanted the establishment of the MFL to solve all the river's problems.
• Stakeholders didn't like the idea of cutting mature trees. Slowed the project down for 3 years until they could be educated.
• Picayune strand Restoration Project in Collier County, Florida: during the coordination of the final Federal/State action plan. At one point OHV user groups simply took over a public information meeting, threatening bodily harm and/or property destruction in Picayune Strand State Forest should the various government managers threaten to restrict free use of the lands or any form of licensing or permit system for 4-wheelers and swamp buggies. Not all stakeholders are disenfranchised or benign. In this case the lands, a mosaic of government and privately owned plots, had not been actively managed and had become something of a wild, wild west and a no-man's land. We are still struggling with State agencies to develop a new land-use ethic and orderly plans for management of the lands....core habitat for the Florida panther, among others.
• Yes, in one of our projects, local community members sabotaged heavy equipment being used, apparently in part due to complaints over who had been hired to complete it.
• In one project another government agency started the process by asking everyone and their brother what they wanted at the site, before they even discussed possible limitations to some activities including environmental constraints. The result was to build unrealistic expectations.

Those of you who have not seen stakeholder involvement as a hindrance seemed to express your thoughts with passion:

• I would never be willing to treat such shared space as a hindrance. Interconnectedness is the whole point.
• I would not say it is a hindrance, rather it has slowed us down. Maybe that is exactly what needs to happen. I think that addressing the issues of how social values are negatively affecting the land and environment is necessary to get to the root of the problem and we must take slow down and take the time to deal with it now because restoring small fragments of the landscape without addressing the social issues is just setting ourselves up for further damage in the future.
• Stakeholders may delay the initial project schedule, but the extra time during the planning usually pays off in the end but stronger endorsement for implementation.
• My view of stakeholder involvement is that you as a researcher become their partner to push forward their conservation agenda. Diversity in views may be a little difficult to handle but it should never be treated as a hindrance but instead a source of innovation/ideas.
• My most successful experience followed an honest presentation at a packed public meeting followed by honest answers to hard questions

Click on the chart for an enlarged view.

When we asked what you believed to be the greatest obstacle to including stakeholders in your work:

• 32.5% said “Not desired by the owner/client/funder”
• 32.5% said “Lack of cooperation/egos of involved parties”
• 9% said “time”
• 6% said “budget”
• 12% said it was a combination of money and time or “all of the above”
• 8% chose “other” and made these comments citing obstacles:
  • Liability issues. So many projects come to an end with “who is going to pay for the law suit?”
  • Bureaucracy.
  • Often not required by the permitting agency (most of what we do is mitigation)
  • Lack of foot soldiers to actually do the gathering of stakeholders

When asked what you believe are the most innovative and successful methods of involving stakeholders, many of you mentioned public meetings/forums and design charrettes:

• I have heard of charrettes and bringing in a team of designers, ecologists, etc. at the onset of the project idea/planning stage
• Community open houses that give a comfortable forum for public involvement
• Open workshops, especially those that break into smaller groups for input.
• I think the charrette process used in planning is innovative
• Smaller groups tend to work better because you can focus on issues that are near and dear to participants.
• Meetings involving food! I have especially good luck when planning meetings late in the day (3:00 pm) with dessert. People are happy because they are eating dessert and they get to go right home at the end of the meeting (being that it's at the end of the day). Also, conferencing calling works well with stakeholders that are located long distances from each other.

Other methods you have found to be successful include:

• Websites
• Talking to landowners one on one
• Private group consultation
• Do stakeholder analysis PRIOR to engaging in any conservation. Find out what the people want and you will be successful in getting your objectives accomplished through them.
• Establish a core group of representatives that are committed to the process and are regulars. They constitute a partnership. Through them, information can be dispersed to broader stakeholder groups that can be targeted when more relevant issues that directly affect them are raised and discussed.
• TV and radio programs, newspaper special interest articles, going out with special interest groups, local meetings, workshops, etc. You have to do a little of everything.
• Explain the financial benefit to the stakeholders. Tell them what they have to gain by cooperating.
• Training volunteers as facilitators for a planning effort. Handing out pins for them that say “How do we start? Talk to me.”
• Asking local amateur naturalists who have developed an obvious significant understanding of a site from field observations to participate in the collection of data.
• Building awareness through art work. Salmon sculpture to campaign against fish farming…coffee house/jam session/video showing (The Leech and the Earthworm)…gathering of local musicians – involve the community in choosing dates, venues and musicians.
• Field visits, demonstrations, hands-on stuff
• When I was a farmer at Cromwell Valley Park in Towson we had a team of draft horses. I would take about 20-25 people at a time on a tour of the park, past the organic gardens, the beehives, the compost operation, the orchard, the severely degraded (at that time)stream, and through natural areas teeming with diversity. Having this natural attraction (the horses) provided me with a quiet setting (not a tractor) and a captive audience.
• Most innovative was the project in El Salvador where the peasant organization applied for and received a grant from Canada for an estuary restoration project. They hired two community members as supervisors and took teens volunteered for the restoration project and are deeply committed to restoring and protecting the estuary.
• Re-conditioning stakeholders to practice a different habit through small groups. In Harlem Park, two people began cleaning up one of the parks. Other neighbors applauded the effort and began helping.

As for the methods you believe are least effective, most of you mentioned formal letters with no follow up, newspaper announcements and legal notices, paper flyers and surveys, and signs. Other responses included:

• EA and EIS process – not designed for communication and discussion. Moving away from the legal structure is seen as generating great risk.
• Night meetings are always poorly attended. People are just too busy and tired at the end of the day to meet.
• Surveys with multiple choice answers lead the respondent in the direction you want them to go; doesn’t capture their uncensored ideas.
• Giving a public presentation of a project in the final stages for the first time with the attitude that “this is just what you need.”
• Formal political meetings structured according to Robert’s rules.
• Producing some brochures and hoping that someone reads them.
• Hiring out of town consultants to fly in every month without having the time or method to plan for the next meeting.
• Asking for buy in after you’ve already designed the project. Stakeholders MUST be included at the very beginning.
• Threatening them with a fine only leads to conflict and non-compliance
• Electronic media hold promise, but currently reach only the higher-educated and those who have more financial means.

When asked what you would like to know about stakeholder involvement in conservation planning, ecological restoration and regenerative design initiatives, most of you requested cost-effective communication techniques, and examples of how others are doing it successfully. We hope the suggestions offered by our readers in this survey and the other articles in this issue of Leaf Litter help provide this information.