<%BANNER%>

Examining the Normative Aspects of Public Participation in Community Planning: A Case Study of the Big Bend Scenic Byway


PAGE 1

EXAMINING THE NORMATIVE ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY PLANNING: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY By NOAH STANDRIDGE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Noah Standridge

PAGE 3

To my wife and partner in this adventure.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My time in graduate school has been filled with challenges that have at times seemed impossible to overcome. The couns el of Dr. Martha Monroe, Dr. Janaki Alavalapati, Dr. Rhonda Phillips, and Dr. George Blakeslee has helped to me to overcome obstacles and reach the goal. I am gr ateful for them and hope that I can give my time and effort to others as they have to me. This research could not have been conducted without the financial assistance of Dr. Taylor Stei n and the Florida Department of Transportation. Finally, and the place of honor, I offer to my wife Brinly all that is within my heart and strength to show my appreciation for th e time she has labored together with me. She is exactly the “help-meet” and partner that I n eed in this world. I hope that I can serve her the rest of my life as well.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Problem Statement........................................................................................................1 Study Area and Background.........................................................................................3 Research Objectives and Hypotheses...........................................................................7 Objectives..............................................................................................................7 Hypotheses............................................................................................................7 Rationale For Study......................................................................................................7 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................9 Historical Public Participation......................................................................................9 Participatory Democracy Theory................................................................................11 Representative Democracy.........................................................................................14 Summary of Theories.................................................................................................14 Success In Public Participation...................................................................................16 Principles of Public Participation...............................................................................17 Collective Efficacy.....................................................................................................19 Summary.....................................................................................................................20 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................22 Study Area..................................................................................................................22 Study Population.........................................................................................................22 Survey Design.............................................................................................................23 Pilot Testing................................................................................................................24 Survey Procedures......................................................................................................24 Limitations of Study...................................................................................................25 Preparation of Variables.............................................................................................26

PAGE 6

vi Objective One......................................................................................................26 Objective Two.....................................................................................................28 Objective Three...................................................................................................29 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................31 Objectives...................................................................................................................31 Survey Response Rate................................................................................................31 Principles of Participation...........................................................................................31 Socio-Demographic Character istics of CAG Members.............................................34 Collective Efficacy and Principles..............................................................................39 Conclusion..................................................................................................................44 5 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................46 Expand Role of Scenic Highways Coordinator..........................................................47 Increase Diversity.......................................................................................................48 Disclose Information..................................................................................................48 Structure Meetings......................................................................................................49 Conclusion..................................................................................................................50 APPENDIX A BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY CORRI DOR ADVOCACY GROUP SURVEY.....55 B MAP OF STUDY AREA...........................................................................................68 C CORRELATIONS OF INDICIES A ND ITEMS FOR LOGIT ANALYSIS............69 D MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................................71 E MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF COLLECTIVE EFICACY ITEMS..................73 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................79

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Principles of Public Participation.............................................................................18 2 Data Gathering Schedule..........................................................................................25 3 Principles Domains, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha..................................28 4 Collective Efficacy Index, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha........................30 5 Principles and Characteristics of Public Participation.............................................32 6 Means of the Principles and Power Items................................................................33 7 Regression equation, Dependent Vari able, and Independent Variables..................40 8 Coefficient, Standard Error, Signi ficance, and Aggregated Elasticity.....................42 9 Correlations of Principles and Collective Efficacy Index........................................69 10 Correlations of Characteristics of Pub lic Participation and Collective Efficacy Index.........................................................................................................................6 9 11 Correlations of Items Used in Collective Efficacy index.........................................70 12 Importance of CAG Meeting Characteristics...........................................................72 13 Collective Efficacy Items.........................................................................................74

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Big Bend Scenic Byway.............................................................................................5 2 Wakulla County, Florida..........................................................................................23 3 CAG Participants and Wakulla County Residents Age Dispersion.................................................................................................................35 4 Ethnicity of CAG Participants and Wakulla County Residents...............................36 5 Level Of Education of CAG Members and Wakulla County Residents .................37 6 Annual Income of CAG Participants.......................................................................38 7 Annual Income of Wakulla County Residents.........................................................38

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science EXAMINING THE NORMATIVE ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY PLANNING: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY By Noah Standridge August 2003 Chair: Martha Monroe Cochair: Janaki Alavalapati Major Department: School of Fore st Resources and Conservation Public participation continue s to be a topic of debate in research literature and professional publications as practitioners and th eorists define what structural principles should guide public involvement. Little consensus exists on what elements should comprise those principles. Further, very l ittle formal investigation has occurred to determine what principles are important to participants. No evaluation has occurred to determine which principles are most or leas t important to those involved or how those principles affect the collectiv e efficacy of individuals. This research has explored three aspects of public participation associated with the designation of the Florida Big Bend Scenic Byway. The socio-demographics of the participants involved in the planning were compared with the surrounding community to determine if participants repr esented the surrounding communit y. Structural principles of the process were evaluated to determine which aspects were most important to individuals. Participant attitudes toward th e structure of the designation process were

PAGE 10

x evaluated to investigate the effect of the structure on me mbers’ perceived collective efficacy. Results show that participants of the designation process were an elite group of individuals whose socio-dem ographics differed from the general population of Wakulla County, Florida. However, this elect group placed most value on getting community members to the planning meetings. They placed least importance on having power over the process and decision-making. Further, the importance of consensus, education, representation, and gender was found to have an effect on the perceived ability of participants to contribute to decision-making processes. These findings provide further understanding of the values participants pl ace on aspects of thei r participation in community issues and can be used to he lp guide these processes in the future.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Statement How to engage citizens meaningfully a nd effectively in public decision-making processes is one of the key issues facing pol icy makers today (Stern and Fineberg 1996). It is widely accepted that citizens should be involved in community planning and environmental decision-making. The challe nge is how to design public involvement forums that produce both sound policy outcomes a nd meet the democratic expectations of all involved (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989; Dryzek 1990), creating an environment for a positive and legitimate discourse. Practitioners and theorists have explored success in public involvement forums, finding that it is a function of both the decision-making outcomes and structural characteristics of the process. Researchers ha ve sought to define th e specific criteria for such success in public participation (Lynn a nd Busenberg 1995; Moore 1996), searching for principles to guide public involvement. There is little consensus, however, about what those principles should be (Tuler and We bler 1999). Moreover, professionals have provided most of the input and very little ha s been received from the participants. Some research has focused on how participants define successful outcomes of public participation (Moore 1996), but very few studies have conducted research on how participants define good principles in thei r own voices. Further, no evaluation of these principles has occurred to determine which ones are more and less important and identify their relationship to other variables.

PAGE 12

2 This study investigates the normative aspect s of public particip ation in community and natural resource planning. Participation no rms are those informally or formally and unspoken or spoken rules of engagement that are agreed upon by the general consensus of those involved. Principles are related to norms in that they represent the ideal characteristics of the process structure a nd communication between decision-makers and participants. Julian Habermas (1984, 1987) propo sed an ideal discourse that could exist between participants. Using Ha bermas’ theory, Webler (1995) outlined the meta-criteria of fairness and legitimacy that should exist in democratic processes. Further, Webler suggested that specific principles might be developed out of these criteria that govern and direct decision-making. Based on these two works, Tuler and Webl er (1999) investigated the normative claims of Webler (1995), examining how partic ipants define good principles in their own voices. Their study gathered information from participants involved in a forest policymaking process in New York. In that st udy, interviews were used to identify characteristics of the process that were important to participants. Qualitative analysis revealed seven principles. To progress a theo ry of public participation, they suggested that identifying citizen’ perceptions of the importance of the principles as well as how they relate to socio-demographi c characteristics shoul d be the next steps in this area of research. Participant attitudes toward the principles may also influence their beliefs about how efficacious the decision-making group is in attaining certain goals or performing specific tasks related to the mission of the group. The percepti on of collective efficacy is based on how capable a group of individuals or community can perform and may predict

PAGE 13

3 how it will perform in the futu re (Carroll and Reese 2003). Past research has related the deficiencies of socio-economic status to low levels of collective efficacy (Sampson et al. 1997). Research has also linked co llective efficacy to how teache rs feel a school is able to accomplish certain corporate goals (Bandura 1997; Goddard and Goddard 2001). This research can be linked as well to public participation forums where individuals can have a perception of how the group is able or can ach ieve certain goals. It appears that current research has not explored the relationship between collective efficacy and public of participation. However, participant attitudes toward the structure of the process may have a substantial effect on the ability of member s to participate effectively in community planning. The context for exploring these aspects of participation is the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process, which is a part of the Florida Scenic Highways program. The details of this program and the area in whic h it is located will be introduced in the following section. Study Area and Background The primary intent of the Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) is to designate existing roadway corridors in order to preser ve, maintain, and enhance unique intrinsic resources for the traveling pub lic’s enjoyment. It can also benefit communities along the roadway corridor, providing resource pr otection, community recognition, economic development/ tourism, partnering, and comm unity visioning (FSHP 1996). The process of designing a scenic highway is a participat ory effort, led by local community residents, to heighten awareness of Florida’s hi story and intrinsic resources (FSHP 1996). Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) provides communities interested in scenic highwa y designation with several reso urces to assist them. The

PAGE 14

4 Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual offers a detailed guide that leads communities through the steps of designation. Grants ar e made available that can help support community events featuring the proposed byway as well as technical experts. A resource coordinator is available throughout the pr ocess and he/ she can offer communities information and hands-on assistance. This research is part of a larger proj ect evaluating the Big Bend Scenic Byway (BBSB) designation process over a period of three years (Figure 1) The project will gather information from participants involve d in the planning of the byway as well as measure community attitudes toward economic development, tourism, and the effectiveness of public meetings to gene rate support for the byway. The byway is currently proposed to travel through Wakulla, Leon, and Frank lin counties. All counties have expressed interest in the byway, howev er, Wakulla County is the only county that has moved ahead with the process, promoti ng the byway to the community and forming the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). This group of is composed of community residents currently involved in the designation of the BBSB. Communities in the region have historically used the harvesting of timber and marine life as major sources of income. In the past two decades, regulations affecting harvestable areas and extracti on amounts have led to significa nt reductions in regional income. In response, local, state and nationa l agencies have looked for new sources of revenue for the citizens. One of the strategies is to increase tourism by promoting the area through the development of a Florida Scenic Highway. The Apalachee Savannah’s Scenic Highway (ASSH) is currently a designated section of roadway in Liberty County located in the Apalachicola National Forest (the

PAGE 15

5 largest National Forest in Florida with over 564,000 acres). The BBSB will extend from the southern terminus of the Apalachee Savannah’s Corridor, which runs along the forest’s western flank. It will then travel eas t along the coastline, diverging north to the center of the forest and east to the St. Ma rks National Wildlife Refuge. The corridor of the BBSB was chosen for its natural beauty and historic resources. The Apalachicola National Forest has many rivers and stream s providing a steady freshwater flow to estuaries known for shellfish and other commer cial seafood. Portions of the forest contain cypress, oak, and magnolias. Stands of slas h and longleaf pines c over the sandhills, and flatwoods provide habitat for the largest popul ation of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the world. Figure 1. Big Bend Scenic Byway Many other qualities make the Apalachico la region unique. The Gulf of Mexico borders it on the south, and Highway 98 extends along the shore for many miles, offering spectacular views. Freshwater springs dot the area, includi ng the Spring Creek, which is a

PAGE 16

6 collection of up to 14 springs with a combined output of nearly 1.25 billion gallons a day, billowing up from the Gulf near the town Saint Marks, making it the largest spring in Florida by over 250%. Various state forests, geological sites, and a National Wildlife Refuge add to the scenic and natural beauty. Residents of Wakulla County have been the most proactive among the three counties in initiating the de signation process. They may consider the BBSB as an opportunity to diversify and expand their economy. Some Franklin County residents seem to be hesitant of increasing promoti on of the area. Tourism is already a strong component of the county’s economy, and reside nts may be leery of attracting more. Leon has the smallest portion of the byway and the largest population; many residents may not even be aware of the planning efforts. The BBSB designation process was designed by the FSHP to be participatory in its structure. It is initiated and led by community resident s, with some professional assistance from a Florida Department of Tr ansportation Scenic Highways Coordinator and other management agencies. In this case, an employee of the US Forest Service who is also a resident of Wakulla County helped initiate the designa tion of the Apalachee Savannah’s Scenic Highway on federal land in Liberty County in1998. Soon after, there were discussions among FDOT, Forest Servi ce personnel, and community residents to extend the scenic highway into adjoining counties. The designation process formally began w ith several community meetings located in the small towns of Wakulla County. Du ring these initial forums, the byway was introduced and described by consultants (also Wakulla residents), tourism leaders and a representative from the USFS, while residents responded wi th questions and concerns.

PAGE 17

7 Participants were invited to become more involved as a part of the Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). The CAG met for a planning meeting in January and drafted a Letter of Intent initiating scen ic highway designation. The participants who attended this CAG meeting are the source of data for this re search project. Research Objectives and Hypotheses This research sought to gather information that could be applied to the FSHP and to further understand the dynamics of the participatory structure of the designation process. Objectives 1. Which principles of a public involveme nt process are most important and least important to participants? 2. Do the participants of the Big Bend S cenic Byway designation process represent the surrounding community? 3. Is there a relationship between perceive d collective efficacy of CAG members and the principles and characteristics of participation? Hypotheses 1. Participants will place higher importan ce on power to influence process and outcomes over other principles. 2. The participants of the Big Bend Sc enic Byway designation process do not represent the demographics of the surrounding community. 3. There is no relationship between the certa in principles and characteristics of participation and participants ’ level of collective efficacy. Rationale For Study Several dimensions of participation are used in this study to evaluate participatory decision-making in the Florida Scenic Highways Program: principles of public participation, socio-demographic representa tion, and collective efficacy. The justification of this study is to further the understandi ng of normative aspects of participation in community planning and environmental deci sion-making from the perspective of

PAGE 18

8 participants. Doing so will further assist our understanding of participants’ attitudes toward the structure of the process. The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSH P) begins with a premise that members of the community should be involved in byw ay planning. However, do all cross-sections of the community actually participate, or does the process include only elites? Examining this case can determine whethe r the participants involved in scenic highway planning are representative of the community. What are participants’ attitudes toward the structural principles that govern the part icipation process? The inform ation obtained from this study can assist the FDOT and co mmunities interested in scenic highway designation. By gathering information on part icipants’ attitudes toward the BBSB process a better discourse can be developed that will improve the structure of the participation and the collective efficacy of individuals. Specifically, this research seeks to deve lop implications that can be used to improve the effectiveness of the FSHP in gaining community support for designation, suggest techniques that can be used to impr ove the structure of the process, and the ability of participants to c ontribute to the decision-maki ng. These implications can be used to strengthen the relationship of the scenic highways coordinators with communities, and refine the FSHP manua l to better guide the CAG through the designation process.

PAGE 19

9 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Citizen participation occurs in many fo rms to engage individuals in decisionmaking. These can be very informal commun ity discussions or structured government processes with specific stated goals. In either case, a vari ety of political processes are exhibited that are common to both. This revi ew of literature will provide the basis for current public participation theory. It will further investigate studies concerning the structural characteristics of th e process, and the level of coll ective efficacy of participants involved in decision-making. Historical Public Participation After the American and French Revolutions ordinary male citizens began to be integrated into the po litical system, although the majority of rights were vested in the hands of the wealthy. Democratic reforms in the 19th century were introduced into most European nations in the form of bills of ri ghts, division of power, equal access to voting privileges, and permission of parties and labor unions to organize. Public participation has been a major focus of debate in the Unite d States and Europe since the turn of the 19th century. As in other Western countries, the U.S. recognized the need for government policy to be publicly accountable to protect indi viduals from the infringes of government (Webler 1995). Political protests and social movements have existed since the country’s foundation in order to express the displeas ure of the powerless. As government policy continued to develop, institutionalization of public participation continued to become

PAGE 20

10 more widespread in government agencies. Fo r instance, the Admini strative Procedures Act of 1944 mandated how agencies were to co nduct themselves, although it did not give specifics of how participati on was to be practiced (Danek e et al. 1983). During Johnson’s Great Society Era of the 1950’s and 1960’s, legi slation evolved with the Revised Housing Act of 1954 and later the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Both of these laws sought “maximum feasible participation” in community development (Moynihan 1969). The policies that most profoundl y drive public participa tion today are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The assumptions behind the laws of the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s was that participation would help improve conditions for citizen s. Another assumption could be that government agencies were also interested in getting credibilit y, curbing protest of government action, or getting public approval for government behavior. Instead of promoting partic ipation to protect individual interests in decisionmaking, some policy makers suggested that public participation was essential for good governance. This view was echoed centuries ea rlier under the assumption that in order for democracy to be effective, citizens must have legitimate power to influence how they are governed (Mill 1873; Rousseau 1968[1762]). Howe ver, in contrast to the ethical and ideal rationale for participati on, today it has been s uggested that citizen participation has become more of a watchdog activity than a means to free citizens from poverty, exploitation, and injustice (Webler 1995). De mand for public involvement has increased as trust and confidence in government and ot her major institutions has eroded (Berman 1997; Hadden 1991; Kasperson 1994). As a resu lt of these views, more interactive participatory forms are developing because of increased transpar ency in government

PAGE 21

11 decision-making, more available information, multilateral processe s, and the popularity of stakeholder involvement proce sses (Yosie and Herbst 1998). Briefly exploring the history of public participation in western society and specifically in the United States provides a context to examine theories that attempt to justify and explain political behavior. Part icipatory and representative democracy, two dominant theories today, ar e used to explain the beha vior of contemporary public participation. This next s ection will look at them briefl y, outlining the arguments for promoting and limiting citizen i nvolvement in decision-making. Participatory Democracy Theory It is impossible to discuss public partic ipation without intr oducing participatory democracy theory. Participatory democracy va lues individual participation in decisionmaking and promotes that it is necessary for government legitimacy (Thomas 1990). This ethical-normative argument asserts that publi c participation should attempt to bring in members of the general public and operate a public involvement process that gives them opportunity to influence decision-maki ng. Participatory decision-making, where the residents of the surrounding community are invo lved in planning processes, is based on this theory. Public participation is central to two of participatory democracy’s foundational tenets, popular sovereignty and political equa lity (Rosenbaum 1978). It is generally accepted that democracy is the consent among people who establish sovereignty based on their popular and mutual agreement. Sherry Ar nstein’s (1969) “ladde r of participation” advanced the normative argument that participat ion is better when it gives citizens the power to influence the manner in which they are governed. Arnstein’s hierarchy is a widely cited work that offers a seven-step continuum of participation ranging from

PAGE 22

12 complete agency control to complete citizen control. The lower rungs of the ladder describe token participation only used to legitimize already formed agency decisions. Progressing up the ladder descri bes increasing measures of citizen involvement to the point of complete control over planni ng, policy-making, and decision-making. The continuum helps to identify processes that ma y be truly participatory or more superficial than agencies may think they are (Arnstein 1969). The legitimacy and functioning of democr atic governments are based on their ability to make decisions based on the need s of the governed and by how much the public is involved in reaching those decisions (Barach 1967:3). The French philosopher Rousseau argues that a sovereignty is compos ed of all citizens w ho provide input through public participation to develop mutual a nd legitimate objectives. Only through the interaction of citizens can the general will of the popul ous emerge (Rousseau 1968: 1762). Participatory democracy theorists are not on ly concerned with the establishment of popular sovereignty. They argue that democracy must also develop capable and socially responsible citizens able to pa rticipate effectively in affair s (Barach 1967:3). Further, citizens’ moral and intellectual developmen t occurs through involvement in political affairs (Mill 1873; Laird 1993; Rousseau 1968:17 62). In essence, people learn democracy by participating in its mechanics. That par ticipation then further enhances democracy (DeSario and Langton 1987; Fiorino 1989; Lynn 1990; Rosenbaum 1978; ShraderFrechette 1990). Based on the assumptions of participatory democracy, several theoretical attempts have been made to find princi ples that guide the meaningful integration of citizens into

PAGE 23

13 public decision-making (Romanillos-Palerm 1998; Webler 1995). These are based on the work on Habermas’ theory of communicative action in which he describes an ideal discourse. This discourse is described in f our parts: (1) every in terested person should have an opportunity to participate in the discourse; (2) all partic ipants can put forth objective, normative and subject claims; (3) a ll participants can challenge the validity of claims presented by others; (4) all particip ants can have a say in defining discourse closure. Webler (1995) proposes a normative th eory of public participation that defines specific conditions for Habermas’ ideal disc ourse in the context of environmental decision-making using two meta-principles: 1) fairness and 2) competence. Fairness refers to the opportunity for all in terested or affected parties to assume a legitimate role in the decision-making process. Competence refers to the ability of the participants to reach the best decision possible given the informati on available. In order for participants to have the ability to exert their influence, stru ctural principles or nor ms could be used to moderate typical power struggl es that tend to dominate the process (Palerm 1999). The well-known political theorist F oucault (1988) argues that pow er relationships cannot be eliminated. However, the development of Habermas’ theory into practical guiding principles of public involvement could in crease the effectiveness of individual participation and power mediation by reducing the influence of power. The basis of participatory democracy theory is that broad cross sections of the public should be directly involved in public decision-ma king. Involvement strengthens the democratic system by developing civi c-minded citizens, increasing efficacy, and theoretically generating a bett er and more appropriate resu lt. However, some theorists

PAGE 24

14 argue that public involvement in decisionmaking should be limited. These arguments are often framed in terms of representative democracy. Representative Democracy One contrast to participatory democracy is representative democracy. Although not in direct opposition, this theory takes a significantly different standpoint. This theory is functional-analytic, meaning it makes observations of society, and then develop theories explaining its behavior. Both perspectives assert that citizen participation is necessary for the stability of the social system, but they diffe r on the degree of civic involvement that is possible. Often referred to as liberal representative democracy or pluralism, elitism argues that most citizens do not have the time, knowledge, interest or resources to participate in public decision-making activities (Motte and McClaran 1997 ). Instead, citizens elect representatives to influence pol icy decisions or support intere st groups that in turn lobby on their behalf. This theory challenges th e values of “classical democracy” and the competency of citizens to participate m eaningfully (Pateman 1970). Representative democracy even goes further to imply that t oo much participation may disrupt the social system (Burke 1968), is economically in efficient (Rosenbaum 1978), technically incompetent (Cupps 1977), and incites conf lict and further unrest (Huntington 1970). Elitism supports public participa tion only when it contributes to the stability of the social system. Summary of Theories The competing theories of participator y democracy and representative democracy both have strengths and weaknesses. The focus of participatory democracy is the interests of individuals and a sserts that democratic systems are strengthened and defined

PAGE 25

15 by public involvement. However, there are ma ny who critique this theory as being inefficient and producing conflict. Elitism argue s that political elite s (interest groups) in power compete with other politi cal elites to develop policy. This may in fact be a good approximation of how actual decision-making occurs in the U.S. However, questions arise about whether this is id eal: can interest groups ade quately represent the public’s underlying values (Gaventa 1980; Overdevest 2000; Wilson 1980)? In a study conducted by Overdevest (2000), she found that particip ants involved in a pa rticipatory national forest land management process were compos ed of an elite group of individuals with different socio-demographics from the surrounding community. Between 50% and 75% of participants represented fo rmal interest groups. A compar ison of the participants and the general community revealed that those engaged in the planning process accurately represented the attitudes and va lues of the general community. Many participation processes have elements of both theories. From a functionalanalytic perspective, one c ould make the argument that publ ic involvement takes on both normative qualities and also has power struggles of elite interests. Because it is suggested that democracy is the consent between i ndividuals and a governing body, this thesis argues that improving the ability of the ge neral public to access decision-making is beneficial to the inte grity of democratic systems (Rousseau 1968:1762). In order to develop a better understandi ng of how to enhance that ability, two aspects of participation will be examined: 1) the structural principles of participation processes, 2) and the level of collective effi cacy of participants. These elements can help to determine what principles of public particip ation are most important to participants and the relationship between collective efficacy a nd their attitudes toward the principles.

PAGE 26

16 Success In Public Participation Evaluating success in public involvement is often considered in terms of both process and outcomes. Several studies s how a clear preference for evaluating participatory mechanisms based on both criteria (Bingham 1986). Yosie and Herbst (1998) interviewed 37 individuals experienced in participatory processes and concluded that there is a need for both outcome a nd process evaluative measures. Some authors have proposed evaluative measures based on de mocratic theory and social justice (Syme and Sadler 1994; Webler 1995). However, it is also suggested that success is context specific and definitions may be relative and not universal. Defining successful outcomes has been th e focus of several studies (Chess and Purcel 1999; Lynn and Busenberg 1995; Moore 1 996; Schweitzer et al. 1996). One of the overlying themes of success is the degree of access participants have to information (Ashford and Rest 1999; Syme and Sadler 1994 ). Also important to participants were their ability to influence the decisions ma de, fairness of the process, establishing continuing relationships, creating more ope n lines of communication (Bingham 1986), getting issues on the agenda, and comprehe nsive community involvement (Moore 1996). There seems to be no evaluation of which char acteristics of success are most important to participants, and Bingham and Moore seem to be relatively unique in their approach of defining success in the voice of the participants. Tuler and Webler (1999) continued this investigation by identifying important structural principles described by participants of a participat ory process. These principles correspond to several of the components of success researchers have identified and will be described in the next section.

PAGE 27

17 Principles of Public Participation The theory of participatory democracy asse rts that members of the public should be involved in decision-making. Ba sed on this premise, policymakers should look for ways to involve individuals. Process guidelines help to effectivel y engage people in discourse and govern how the public is involved in decision-making. Institutions play a role in establishing norms, and Webler (1995) argues that citizen participation has become contentious because there is no formal mech anism for the establishment of evaluative norms. Theorists and practitioners have attempted to define good process attributes of public involvement from observation and theory (Bingham 1986; Laird 1993; Palerm 1998; Thomas 1990; Webler 1995). However, th ere is no consensus on which principles should make up that process (Tuler and Webler 1999). Very little i nput has been received from participants to determine which princi ples are important or effective from their perspective. While there is some literature on how participants define successful outcomes of public participation (Moore 1996), Tuler and Webler (1999) claim to be the first to define good process components from the voice of the partic ipants. Others have corroborated these principles elsewhere in theory of process norms (Palerm 1998). Defining participants’ attitudes toward d ecision-making processes can benefit public participation by identifying what aspects are most valued. Using grounded theory, a qualitative tec hnique where important concepts emerge from data analysis, Tuler and Webler ( 1999) identified seven concepts as public involvement principles duri ng a land management planning process in Maine. Each principle describes a continuum where having less is seen as detrimental to the process and increasing it is s een as beneficial.

PAGE 28

18 Table 1. Principles of Public Part icipation (Tuler and Webler 1999). Access to the process, Physically getting people to the meeting and involved in deliberative settings. Power to influence process and outcomes, Includes consensus, distribution of powe r, and getting issues on an agenda Access to information, Information on the issues being discusse d flowing from the participants and the organizers, coming from the expert and especially from the lay community. Structural characteristics to promote constructive interactions, Physical structure of the meeting pla ce that contributes to the ability of individuals to be seen an d heard when providing input. Facilitation of constructiv e personal behaviors, Respectful behaviors that give ev ery person’s view equal credence. Adequate analysis, Adequate time is given for informati on to be assimilated and verified. Enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes. Trust is formed during the process and relationships developed that produce the desire for future collaboration. The results are based on 49 individual in terviews. The principles that emerged provide examples of process components that affect the quality of public involvement. The principles are effective in public participation research because they are derived from the participants themselves, al low a starting point to evalua te the public perceptions of participatory community planning, and can be used by organizers to enhance participation opportunities for individuals. Webler et al. (2001) evalua ted these principles using q-sort analysis, a qual itative technique where partic ipants group statements that relate to one another and then place thos e categories into a hierarchy. His results indicated that partic ipants representing interest groups place more importance on

PAGE 29

19 characteristics related to issues of power th at gave their group mo re influence in the process. Individuals representing only pers onal interests were more concerned with consensus and having a more accessible pr ocess that produced better democratic participation. Evaluating the principles in terms of their relative importance to each other and their relation to socio-demographic characteri stics of participants has not been conducted. Researchers suggest this should a next step in public partic ipation research (Tuler and Webler 1999). This can help determine weakne sses and strengths in public participation methodology. If trends can be seen in certain groups placing more importance on specific principles, this can aid managers of public meetings in developing and using better techniques to invol ve those groups. Collective Efficacy The structure of the process may also affect the efficacy of participants to achieve or be successful in reaching their desired goals relating to the di scourse and outcomes. Albert Bandura’s seminal works on the subj ects of personal and collective efficacy (1986, 1993) are the cornerstones of many modern studies on the subjects. Researchers have explored the relationship of collectiv e efficacy on teacher performance in schools (Goddard and Goddard 2001) and sports teams (Kozub and McDonnell 2000) to neighborhood crime levels (Sampson et al. 1997). Some research suggests that collective efficacy in community groups is influenced by the structures that promote interaction and power distribution within th em (Carroll and Reese 2003). These concepts are discussed in public participation literature in terms of legitimacy and power mediation (Arnstein 1969; Barach 1967:3; Palerm 1999), but do not appe ar to be linked directly to collective efficacy.

PAGE 30

20 The widely used political efficacy scale designed by Campell et al. (1954) provides one linkage between national pa rticipation processes and effi cacy. Their work has been expounded upon but still retains or iginal scale items dealing with more formal voting type participation mechanisms. Exploring th e relationship between collective efficacy and the principles of public participation may help us unde rstand how the structure of participatory processes affects the perceive d ability of a group to accomplish their goals. Summary Citizen participation is a t opic that generates considerab le debate in the public arena. Although most democratic societies s upport some form of pa rticipation, it is how to attract the appropriate degr ee and quality of participation over which debates ensue. It is inevitable that the active and elite citizens will continue to promote their involvement in public decision-making, and the way in wh ich the public is engaged will be a focal point for debate. Because of the similarities between national forest planning (Overdevest 2000) and scenic highway designation, this st udy hypothesizes that the characteristics of the CAG participants will be different than those of the genera l population of Wakulla County, Florida. Improving the participation of community members in scenic highway designation is a precursor to enhancing the discourse be tween decision-makers and participants. This is a promising avenue of research that can guide public involvement into more effective processes and outcomes that are mutually be neficial and satisfying to those involved. Many authors have laid a substantial am ount of groundwork to explain and support various views of how democratic systems should and do operate. Some argue that for system stability public participation should be used as much as possible. Others conclude that participation is only practical for a se lect group, and the public should be involved

PAGE 31

21 only so far as it is reasonable, efficient, and helpful to the goals of the policy makers. If average citizens are to be involved in any way, there must be more information on how they engage what are their attitudes toward that discourse. Normative theories look for ways to include citizens in the discourse eff ectively and meaningfull y. Principles that can guide citizen involvement in public particip ation can be explored in the context of attitudes and intentions. As noted by other researchers, there appear s to be little literature on identifying principles from the voice of the participants. Further, what principles are more important to participants has been sugge sted as a next step in th e process of exploring public participation theory. Based on Webler’s ( 2001) and Overdevest’s (2000) findings, this thesis assumes that participants will favor power over other principl es because they are composed of an elite group of community residents. This research will examine Corridor Advocacy Group members’ attitudes toward the principles of participation by identifying which ones are most important to participants. Although collective efficacy has not dealt dire ctly with the influence of structural elements of participation, it does suggest that an individual’s belief in the ability if the group to accomplish goals has an effect on colle ctive efficacy. This can be further related to the principles and characteristics of power described by Tuler and Webler. This thesis will explore the relationship between the pr inciples and characteristics of public participation and CAG members’ pe rception of collective efficacy.

PAGE 32

22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methods used in this study. It will explain how the population was identif ied, the survey instrument was developed, and the data analyzed. This research proj ect was designed to ev aluate the designation process of the Big Bend Scenic Byway (BBSB) by measuring the attitudes of participants involved in the planning process towards the principles of the process and the collective efficacy of the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). Study Area Wakulla County is located in the Florida Panhandle, south of the state capital of Tallahassee. Several towns and cities in Waku lla County served as the focus of this research. Town meetings presenting the BBSB plan to communities occurred in October through December of 2001 in the communities of Panacea Park, Ochlocknee Bay, Wakulla Springs, and Sopchoppy (Figure 2). The CAG meeting, at which the first formal planning process occurred, was held in Craw fordville, Florida in late January 2002. Study Population The BBSB designation process has involved members of communities in Wakulla County, Florida who attended at least one of four scenic byway meetings. These participants were then invited to beco me members of the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). Of the residents who attended the mee tings, 77 agreed to become members of the CAG. The CAG is composed of residents i nvolved in the designation of the BBSB as well as community leaders, speakers, and organizers of the designation process.

PAGE 33

23 Figure 2. Wakulla County, Florida Sign-in lists at each meeting, gathered by the consultants who arranged the meeting, recorded information about members of the CAG. Because of the access to members of the CAG and the small numbers of participants involved, it was possible to survey the entire population. Survey Design The research design was cross-sectional, m eaning that the survey was administered to a group at one specific point in time. The survey included 123 questions pertaining to scenic highway designation, tourism mana gement, public participation, community development, and demographics (Appendix A) Of these questions, 44 are the basis for this research and are grouped into 3 categories. Category #1 consisted of 19 items m easuring members’ attitudes toward characteristics of public involvement in th e context of the designation process. These questions were derived from several supporting studies on public participation principles

PAGE 34

24 (Bingham 1983; Palerm 1998; Laird 1993; Thomas 1990; Tuler and Webler 1999; Webler 1995). This question us ed a five point Likert scal e to measure how important each item was to the participant. Category #3 consisted of 15 items related to the level of collec tive efficacy of the CAG. Efficacy questions have been shown to be more effective when they are specifically written for the situation. The questions were developed from collective efficacy literature and scored on seven-poi nt Likert scale measuring individual’s perceptions of how able the CAG was in acco mplishing certain tasks and goals related to the planning process (Bandur a 1993, Carrol and Reese 2003). Finally, 10 items measured the socio-demogr aphics of respondent s, their level of participation in community groups, and whether they acted as a repr esentative of any of those groups at the scenic highway planning meetings. Pilot Testing A pilot test of the survey was conducted using 21 University of Florida students attending an English compositi on class. Ideally, a pilot study is conducted with a random sample of the population of interest. Two f actors prevented this: (1) the population of interest was small (n = 77), and (2) survey ing another similar popul ation was outside the realm of possibility. The pilot survey provided the ability to gather participant comments on question wording and identified preliminar y relationships between variables. Using this information, survey questions were improved for clarity. Survey Procedures Numbered questionnaire booklet s and cover letters were ma iled in July 2002 to 77 participants of the BBSB desi gnation process. The survey boo klet was eight-pages long with return postage printe d on the back cover (Appendix A). It was estimated that

PAGE 35

25 participants would take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. Respondents were asked to fol d, staple or tape, and mail th e questionnaire back to the University of Florida when completed. Alt hough the length of the questionnaire may be prohibitive in some research studies, the population was composed of stakeholders already involved in the decisi on-making of the scenic byway. They had an active stake in the content; therefore, they were more lik ely to fill out a detailed questionnaire. The survey instrument was disseminated according to recommendations described by Dillman (2000) to encourage a higher response ra te. This method of survey distribution is widely used in the social scie nces, and is based on a great deal of research. It includes multiple mailings over a period of five weeks. Table 2. Data Gathering Schedule Day 1 University of Florida researchers mailed a postcard letting study participants about the study and soon-to-b e arriving survey packet. Day 3 The survey was then mailed to CAG me mbers two days after the first post card. A need to clarify mailing instructi ons prompted an additional letter to be sent. Day 10 One week after mailing the survey, a postcard was sent thanking study participants for completing the survey a nd asking those who have not returned the survey to send it in. Day 24 Three weeks after the in itial survey mailing, res earchers mailed additional surveys to all non-respondents. A cove r letter included with the questionnaire urged participants to respond as quickly as possible. Day 38 Five weeks after the initial survey ma iling researchers administered another mailing to non-respondents through Priority Mail. This included a third copy of the questionnaire and a letter urging them to complete the questionnaire and return it as soon as possible. Limitations of Study There are several limitations of this study that should be considered. Even though a 70% response rate is considered high for su rveys of this type, 30% of CAG members did not participate. If these n on-respondents felt at all differe ntly about scenic highway

PAGE 36

26 designation and public participation then the results of this research may be skewed. Several other limitations to this research and their effect on the results are listed below. The population size was too small to allow the use of some statistic al tests It cannot support generalizations to ot her populations, but such generalizations were not intended from one small case study. It was early in the byway designation process. The CAG had one planning meeting prior to receiving this survey. Participants ’ attitudes may change as more meetings take place. No records of CAG members’ frequency of attendance were gathered. It cannot be determined if more active particip ants differed from less active ones. A single data technique was used to measure the concepts. Other techniques could have helped confirm results of survey. Preparation of Variables Participant responses collected in the surv ey were entered into SPSS 10 (Statistical Program for the Social Sciences 2000). In order to evaluate h ypotheses, descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, a nd binary logistical regression were used. The analysis method of each research objective is discussed individually. Objective One Which principles of a public involvement process are most important and least important to participants? To evaluate research objective one, th e nineteen characteristics of public participation (Table 3) were collapsed into indices (principles) following conceptual patterns suggested in the literature (Tuler a nd Webler 1999). Next, s cale reliability tests were performed to determine whether the indices measured the constructs. Scale reliability measures the repeatability or intern al consistency of the variables in the index. For an index to be reliable, there must be so me pattern to participant responses. Overall, the index is considered to be valid if it has a Cronbach alpha of at least .6. Therefore, the

PAGE 37

27 cut off point used in this study was = .6. The index “Power to Influence Process and Outcomes” (POWER) had the lowest alpha at .5339, and is consid ered an unreliable measure of one conceptual domain. Because the alpha is a measure of the intercorrelation of items in the index those items that are weakly correlated lower the alpha. One item was removed that had a much higher m ean than the rest of the items, “Prevent any one group from having too much influence. ” However, the alpha of the index did not increase (.5238). A variety of runs revealed that any item(s) rem oved from this index would have lowered the reliability. The weakne ss of this index indi cates that the items Tuler and Webler (1999) suggested comp rised power may measure two or more dimensions of the construct ra ther than one. One caveat, however is that four of the five items in the index had the lowest means of all the other char acteristics of public participation (Appendix D), meaning that four of the five items in the index were considered least important to CAG members. There are several possible expl anations that could account for the low reliability of some of the principles (< .7) in contrast to the literature (Tul er and Webler 1999). The CAG may also have differing perceptions of these items than the community-planning group Tuler and Webler (1999) studied. Question wording may also have influenced the way respondents understood the items th erefore rendering the item ambiguous or negative in meaning. The means of the principles were used to evaluate their importance in relation to each other. Although the means of individual items composing the indices may have been higher than the overall principl es itself, the index averages all the items to give the construct one score (Appendix D).

PAGE 38

28 Table 3. Principles Domains, Indivi dual Items, and Reliability Alpha Principle Characteristics of Public Participation Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted. Put all concerns on the agenda. Allow people who are most affected to have the most representation. Conduct meetings according to consensus. 1. Power to influence the process and outcomes (POWER) Prevent any one group from having too much influence. .5339 Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making comments. 2. Structural characteristics to promote constructive interaction (STRUCTURE) Foster an atmosphere of open communication. .7144 Give advance notice of meetings. Conduct meetings at convenient locations. Conduct meetings at convenient times. 3. Access to the process (ACCESS) Have a diversity of community members represented at the meetings. .7691 Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information 4. Adequate analysis (ANALYSIS) Allow participants to review the information presented at the meeting. .6070 Gather local knowledge. Fully disclose information. 5. Access to information (INFO) Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn detailed information about the issues being discussed. .6643 Develop relationships that encourage future participation. 6. Enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes (FUTURE) Build trust among participants. .6603 7. Constructive personal behaviors (DEVELOPRULES) Develop Rules About Acceptable Behavior 1 item Objective Two Do the participants of the Big Bend S cenic Byway designation process represent the surrounding community? For objective two, a comparis on of the socio-demographics of CAG members was made with the general populat ion of Wakulla County. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the means and frequencies of all socio-demographic quest ions. Graphs created from an Excel database provided the abil ity to compare both groups visually and

PAGE 39

29 quantitatively. Statistical test s could not be conducted be tween the populations because limited information (no data set) wa s available from the census data. Objective Three Is there a relationship between the pe rceived collective efficacy of CAG participants and the principles and characteristics of participation? Objective three evaluated the relationship between collective efficacy and select principles and characteristics of public pa rticipation. This was accomplished in several steps, using a variety of st atistical techniques. First, a collective efficacy index was created from items listed in question #3 of the survey (A ppendix A). Because many items exhibited correlations with each other, variable s for the index were selected that had the highest correlation (>.798) with four or more other items in the collective efficacy section of the survey (Appendix C). The alpha was =.9683 showing strong reliability within the index (Table 4). These questions related to the ability of the CAG members to collaborate effectively, and represent the ove rall level of collective effica cy. In practice, each item in an efficacy index is treated as an independe nt and equally weighted contribution to an overall efficacy score (Carrol and Reese 2003). Using the mean as the cutoff point, the index was recoded into a dichotomous categorical variable indicating high efficacy (1) and low efficacy (0). In order to transform the ordinal variable collective effi cacy into dichotomous form, the calculated mean of the index (Table 4) was used as a dividing point. All part icipants with scores below the mean were coded as perceiving lower collective efficacy. All participants above the mean had a greater perception of the CAGs collective efficacy. This transformation allowed the use of logistical regression analysis. The level of efficacy served as the dependent variable.

PAGE 40

30 Table 4. Collective Efficacy Index, Indivi dual Items, and Reliability Alpha. Index Collective Efficacy Items successfully effect change stay on task work collaboratively give every member an opportunity to contribute work through difficult impasses Collective Efficacy operate according to consensus .9683 Select characteristics and principles of public participation were used as independent variables. A biva riate correlation matrix (Appendi x C) identified variables that had relationships with the collectiv e efficacy index. They included the items (FUTURE) “conditions that co ntribute to future pro cesses”, (CONSENSUS) “conduct meetings according to consensus”, a nd (FUTURE PARTICIPATION) “develop relationships that encourage future particip ation”. The items relating to agenda setting (AGENDA) and equal repres entation (MOST REPRESENTATION) were used based on their theoretical relationships with the index (Carroll and Reese 2003). Sociodemographic items were also included as i ndependent variables. These included income, education, gender, age, and years of residenc e. Next, four of the ten variables were recoded in SPSS as dichotomous indicating low (0) or high (1) levels or importance. The mean of each variable was used as the dividi ng point. Values below the mean received a 0. Those values above it received a 1. Listed below are the recoded variables. Income (level) Originally 11 categories then simplif ied into one dichotomous variable Conduct meetings according to consensus (individual item) Originally an ordinal item. Education (level). Originally eight categories then simp lified into one dichotomous variable Develop relationships that encourage future participation (individual item) Originally an ordinal item.

PAGE 41

31 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section presents the results of th e Big Bend Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy Group Survey and discusses the evidence to support or reject th e hypotheses. It is organized according to research objectives, as follows, and details the statistical methods used in the analysis of the data. Objectives 1. Which principles of a public involveme nt process are most important or least important to CAG participants? 2. Do the participants of the Big Bend S cenic Byway designation process represent the socio-demographics of the surrounding community? 3. Is there a relationship between perceive d collective efficacy of CAG members and the principles and characteristics of participation? Survey Response Rate A total of 77 surveys were mailed to Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) members over the total six-week data collection period. The surveys were returned by a total of 54 participants, two of which indicated they did not want to participate and did not complete the questionnaire. Including al l returned surveys, the to tal response rate was 70%. Principles of Participation The purpose of research objective #1 wa s to determine how CAG members ranked the principles of public participation in order of importance. Six principles were operationalized as 19 individual characteristi cs of public participation. To evaluate attitudes toward the 19 items, participants we re asked how important each characteristic

PAGE 42

32 was to them in relation to the BBSB desi gnation process on a five-point scale of importance (Appendix D). Table 5. Principles and Character istics of Public Participa tion (Tuler and Webler 1999) Principle Characteristics of Public Participation Mean Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted. 3.04 Put all concerns on the agenda. 3.65 Allow people who are most affected to have the most representation. 2.90 Conduct meetings according to consensus. 3.14 1. Items intended to measure “power to influence the process and outcomes Prevent any one group from having too much influence. 4.14 Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making comments. 4.02 2. Structural characteristics to promote constructive interaction Foster an atmosphere of open communication. 4.22 Give advance notice of meetings. 4.20 Conduct meetings at convenient locations. 4.02 Conduct meetings at convenient times. 4.12 3. Access to the process Have a diversity of community members represented at the meetings. 4.24 Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information 4.06 4. Adequate analysis Allow participants to review the information presented at the meeting. 3.92 Gather local knowledge. 4.10 Fully disclose information. 4.29 5. Access to information Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn detailed information about the issues being discussed. 3.86 Develop relationships that enc ourage future participation. 3.98 6. Enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes Build trust among participants. 4.10 7. Constructive personal behaviors Develop Rules About Acceptable Behavior 3.69 Of these items, respondents indicated that the disclosure of information (mean of 4.29), having a diversity of community member s represented at the meetings (4.24), and fostering an atmosphere of open communication (4.22) were the most important

PAGE 43

33 individual characteristics of the scenic byway meetings. Respondents ranked the items allow people who are most affected to have the most representa tion (2.90) and allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conduc ted (3.04) as the two lowest Hypothesis Participants will place higher importan ce on power to influence process and outcomes over other principles. In order to evaluate if the hypothesis of objective #1 was supported by the results, the 19 individual characteristics represented we re condensed into the seven conceptual domains (indices) representing each of th e seven principles. Because the one index described by Tuler and Webler was an unrel iable measure of the construct “Power to influence process and outcomes” (due to low alpha), the individual item means comprising this construct were compared with the rest of the principles (Table 5). Table 6. Means of the Principles and Power Items Principle Mean Access to the Process (PROCESS) 4.15 Prevent any one group from having too much influence. (Power Item) 4.14 Structural Characteristics Promoting Constructive Interactions (STRUCTURE) 4.12 Access to Information (ACCESS) 4.09 Conditions that Contribute to Future Processes (FUTURE) 4.04 Adequate Information Analysis (INFO) 3.99 Constructive Personal Behaviors (DEVELOP RULES) 3.69 Put all concerns on the agenda. (Power Item) 3.65 Conduct meetings according to consensus. (Power Item) 3.14 Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted. (Power Item) 3.04 Allow people who are most a ffected to have the most representation. (Power Item) 2.90

PAGE 44

34 Six principles and four items were eval uated on a scale of im portance. All were shown to have at least some importance to CAG members. However, the results indicate that CAG members placed most importan ce on access to the designation process (principle 3: “access to the process”). This variable denotes designing a meeting time and location with advanced notice as well as having a diversity of people present. Therefore the hypothesis is not supported. Four of the five characteristics Tuler a nd Webler (1999) said were part of the construct of power were considered the leas t important to CAG members (Table 6). Past research has found that types of participants value certain character istics above others (Webler et al. 2001). Participants representing interest groups have been shown to place value on limiting wide participation and minimizing consensus Individuals representing only themselves valued consensus better access for wide spread community involvement, and quality interaction (Webler et al. 2001). CAG memb ers placed importance on these latter characteristics (Table 5) indicating their similarity to individuals who represented only themselves valued (Webler et al. 2001). Ho wever, Overdevest (2000) suggested that participants with more elite socio-demographi cs might be more associated with special interest groups, whom Web ler suggested are more concerned with power. These findings suggest three things: 1) that participants place more importance with getting community members to the meeting th an about characteristics of power, 2) CAG members may have been less likely to support th e values or have been representatives of interest groups, (3) members may be involved for other reasons. Socio-Demographic Character istics of CAG Members The analysis of research objective #2 co mpared the socio-demographics of the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) sample (N = 54) with that of the 2000 Census data for

PAGE 45

35 Wakulla County (N = 22,863). Using this info rmation, a descriptive comparison revealed the degree to which CAG members represente d the socio-demographics of the general population of Wakulla County. Since statistical tests between the two groups could not be conducted, a descriptive comparison shows th at members of the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) had several differences in soci o-demographics compared to the general population of Wakulla County residents. Thes e differences will be highlighted below. Hypothesis The participants of the Big Bend Sc enic Byway designation process do not represent the demographics of the surrounding community The majority of study respondents were female (58%). In comparison, the percentage of females in Wakulla County was fewer (48%) than males (52%). CAG participants represented an older population compared to Wakulla residents. CAG members varied in age from 33 to over 70 ye ars with over half (56%) of the respondents falling between 41 and 60 years (Figure 3). Only 4% of the study part icipants were under 40 years of age, with almost 30% being over the age of 60. In comparison 51% of the population of Wakulla were between 34 and 54 years old, with 20% being over 65 years of age. 2% 8% 33% 31% 25% 2% 28% 18%18% 4% 6% 10% 15% 19 and younger 34 or younger 35-4445-5455-6465-7475+ Ages of RespondentsPercentage of Respondents CAG Participants Wakulla Residents Figure 3. CAG Participants (n=52) and Wakulla County Residents (n=22,863) Age Dispersion

PAGE 46

36 Study participants were almost entirely of Caucasian ethnicity (93%, Figure 4), which is slightly higher than the populat ion of Wakulla County overall (86%). Two Americans Indian/ Alaskan Natives represented all of the ethnic di versity; 5% of CAG participants, but in such small samples, the adding or subtracting a few individuals can dramatically change the proportions. The ge neral Wakulla population is composed of 12% African American and 2% Hispanic or Latino. However, neither Hispanics/ Latinos nor African Americans were represented in the CAG. 5% 0%0%0% 93% 2% 1% 0% 12% 2% 86% 2% Am Indian / Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Latino or Hispanic CaucasianotherRacePercentage of Population CAG Participants Wakulla Residents Figure 4. Ethnicity of CAG Participants (n=50) and Wakulla County Residents (n=22,863) CAG members typically had advanced edu cation with 60% or more having college degrees (Figure 5). Graduate degrees made up a large portion of the sample (31%), and less than 4% did not have a high school degree. Comparatively, Wakulla’s overall population had a much higher proportion of people who completed their high-school degree but did not go to college (35%), fe wer college graduates (10%) and very few graduate degrees (6%). Many residents ( 15%) did not have a high school degree.

PAGE 47

37 15% 35% 22% 10% 6% 2% 14% 2% 22% 22% 8% 31%some high school highschool grad or GED trade/ technical/ vocational training some college college graduate some graduate school or beyond graduate degreeEducation LevelPercentage of Respondents Wakulla Residents CAG Members Figure 5. Level Of Education of CAG Memb ers (n=51) and Wakulla County Residents (n=22,863) Over 25% of CAG participants’ had incomes of $100,000 or more. The average income of participants was between $60,000 and $69,999. The median household income of Wakulla is significantly lower ($45,000) than CAG participants with 50% of the population having incomes between $15,000 and $49,999 and 28% between $50,000 and $99,999. Comparatively, 33% of CAG member s’ had of incomes between $20,000 and $49,999 with 39% between $50,000 and $99,999. The largest difference between CAG members and overall Wakulla County comes from the category of $100,000 or more (25% vs. 8% respectively).

PAGE 48

38 25% 2% 0% 8% 15% 19% 10% 4% 2% 4% 10% <10,00010,00019,999 20,00029,999 30,00039,999 40,00049,999 50,00059,999 60,00069,999 70,00079,999 80,00089,999 90,00099,999 100,000 or moreLevel of IncomePercentage of Respondents Figure 6. Annual Income of CAG Participants (n=48) 10% 6% 15% 17% 18% 20% 8%8%<10,00010,00014,999 15,00024,999 25,00034,999 35,00049,999 50,00074,999 75,00099,999 100,000 or moreIncomePercentage of Respondents Figure 7. Annual Income of Waku lla County Residents (n=22,863) The results of the descriptive analysis of socio-demographics reveal that CAG members overall were different on several respects from the general population of surrounding community. Therefore, the nu ll hypothesis cannot be rejected. CAG members were older, had more education, and had larger annual incomes. No members of the CAG were Hispanics/ Latinos or Afri can Americans possibly because many do not

PAGE 49

39 occupy the highly educated and wealthy cla ss that the members of the CAG typically characterized. This is not surprising sin ce other studies have found similar results (Overdevest 2000). This indicates that el ites from the community may have been involved. Overdevest (2000) found that even th ough interest groups a nd participants with very different socio-demogra phics dominated the process, they still approximated the values of the surrounding community fairly well. Although CAG members had substantial differences in ethni city, income, education, and ag e compared to residents of Wakulla County in general, this does not n ecessarily mean misrepresentation of the community’s values occurred. To know if this is the case, the attit udes and values of both the surrounding community and CAG memb ers would have to be examined. Collective Efficacy and Principles The level of group efficacy can provide a measure of how effective participants believe the CAG was or will be in accomplis hing certain goals and tasks related to the designation process. This section evaluated the individual CAG member’s perspectives on the group dynamics of the CAG meeting by asking participants to rank fifteen items on a seven-point scale (i.e., 1=Not At All, 7=A Great Deal, Appendix E). Items received means between 5 (moderately effective) and 6 (g reat deal of effect). Overall, respondents felt the CAG was moderately to a great deal able to come to the meeting ready to work (mean of 5.81), and had the skills to achieve the designation goal (5.74). The lowest ranked items, but still having a mean ove r 5, were the ability of the group to access information about the community’s needs (5.16) and give equal consideration of all issues presented (5.19). Research question #3 evaluated if th ere was a relationship between CAG member’s efficacy and the principles and char acteristics of public pa rticipation (Tables 8,

PAGE 50

40 9) using a logistical regre ssion. This analysis used seve ral independent variables to construct a model used to estimate probabilit ies (predict) of whether or not respondents would choose high or low efficacy then compar e those predictions with the participants actually level of collective e fficacy. The higher the percentage of correct predictions by the model, the more powerful it is. As discussed earlier in the methods ch apter, the collective efficacy index composed select items with strong correlations (Table 4, pg. 29). Using the mean as the cutoff point, the index was recoded into a di chotomous categorical variable indicating high efficacy (1) and low efficacy (0). Severa l of the independent variables were also transformed to improve the model (pg. 29) Table 7. Regression equation, Dependent Variable, and Independent Variables Dependent Variable y = Independent Variables x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 Collective Efficacy Index Age + Gender + Income + Education + Length of residency + Principle 4 (future process) + Consensus + Future Participation + Agenda + Most representation A regression equation was developed a nd the variables inserted into a SPSS logistical model (Table 7). The model has several output features that indicate the direction of the relationship of the independent variables and their significance. The coefficient explains the slope or direction of the relationshi p between the independent and dependent variable. The aggreg ated elasticity of variab les indicate how much a 1% percentage change in a continuous indepe ndent variable causes an increase in the probability of the dependent variable changing fr om 0 to 1 (lower to higher efficacy) or 1 to zero (depending on sign of coefficient). However, in the case of dichotomous

PAGE 51

41 independent variables, there can be no increase in the mean except for a change from one value to another (poor to rich, young to old, etc. ). Therefore, the coe fficients can only be interpreted as indicating the direction of th e relationship and not the magnitude of it. Hypothesis There is no relationship between certai n principles and characteristics of participation and participants ’ level of collective efficacy. Several characteristics of public particip ation had some effect on CAG members’ level of collective efficacy. Th erefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Each variable and its interpretation will be discussed in the following section. Discussion will focus on those variables that were significant. One of the model’s primary features is the Nagelkerke R Square. It is a test based on a continuous scale from 0 to 1 comparab le to the r-squared value found in linear regression analysis used to evaluate how strong the associ ation between the dependent and independent variables is. The overall ab ility of the model was quite good (.538). The percentage of correct predictions (74%) ma de by the model shows that the model had a strong ability to predic t the dependent variable (Table 8) This means that the model was able to correctly predict the level of collective efficacy of 74% of cases.

PAGE 52

42 Table 8. Coefficient, Standard Error, Significance, and Aggregated Elasticity Variable Coefficient Significance Aggregated Elasticity Consensus** 3.820 .039 1.087 Education* -3.446 .071 -1.383 Gender* -2.982 .072 -1.071 Most Representation* .888 .075 .521 Agenda .857 .117 .709 Years of Residence .027 .512 .090 Income .729 .523 2.073 Age .034 .599 .438 Future Process -.433 .642 .395 Future Participation .232 .883 .0891 Nagelkerke R Square .538 Correct Predictions 74% n=38 significant at p < .05 **significant at p < .1 The coefficient of the dichotomous va riable “Consensus” was positive (3.820), indicating that the more importance a participant placed on conducting meetings according to consensus their collective efficacy tended to be higher. Consensus denotes that individual CAG members perceive th e group must reach a group decision. Because collective efficacy is a measure of how well a group is able to accomplish tasks and goals, it is logical that cons ensus would be positively associated with it. The results suggest that as particip ants’ faith in the use of consensus increases, the level of perceived collective efficacy and the functioning of the group would also increase. Similarly, other studies have noted that the efficacy of schoo lteachers have been shown to be positively influenced by their ability to work toge ther to achieve goals (Bandura 1997, Carrol and Reese 2003). Consensus was considered im portant by CAG members, although less so when compared to all variables. The logit m odel does not take into account the degree of

PAGE 53

43 importance of the variable, but merely indica tes the presence of a relationship and its direction. The ordinal variable “Most Representation” (Participants who are most affected should have the most representation) also had a positive relationship with the index indicating that the greater its importance the higher the level of collective efficacy. For every 1% increase in the importance of “Mos t Representation”, the probability of a participants’ collective efficacy increasing would increase .52%. The variable “allow people who are most affected to have th e most representation” indicates power redistribution in favor of those who may incu r the greatest impacts associated with the scenic byway. Although this variable was ranked as somewhat important to CAG members, it represents the least important variable when compared to all others. However, the same holds true for this vari able as consensus. The model indicates a relationship and direction but does not consider the importance of the variable. However, this may suggest that in the ear ly stages of the planning proce ss participants may feel that everyone has an equal stake in the decision -making and that favor ing one group(s) above others would be unfair. As more specific planning and management strategies are developed participants’ views may change becau se of their perceptions in how they are affected by those plans. The dichotomous socio-demographic variab les gender and education both exhibited significant differences indicating both had re lationships with colle ctive efficacy. Gender was coded as dichotomous variable with a ‘1’ indicating male, a ‘2’ indicating female. Based on coding and the sign of the coeffi cient being negative (-2.982), female CAG members tended to have a lower level of perceived efficacy and male respondents a

PAGE 54

44 higher level. There were slightly more fema le participants (58%) compared to males. CAG members were composed of an older popu lation, and the female to male ratio of older populations tend to have larger proportions of women. Th is may suggest that even though the process included more females, ma les may have dominated the discussions. Another possibility is that fe male participants may perceive the concept of collective efficacy in a different way. Female CAG members could have a more stringent evaluation of the concept that lowered thei r overall perception of the efficacy of the group. Education had a negative relationship w ith the collective efficacy index (-1.38). Members with higher education were coded as a ‘2’. Members with lower education were coded as a ‘1’. The direction of the coeffi cient was negative (-3.446) indicating that CAG participants who had a lower education tende d to have a higher level of perceived collective efficacy, and members with higher ed ucation tended to have a lower level. More educated individuals may perceive th e CAG as less effective because of prior experiences with community planning forums and may have more skepticism of them general. Conclusion In conclusion, this research found diff erences in the importance members of the CAG placed on principles and characteri stics of public participation. Although differences were not great betw een these items and all characte ristics were found to be at least somewhat important to the participants, the variables’ relative importance to each other revealed that some principles were more and less favored than others. The frequency comparison revealed that CAG members were an elite group of individuals with different so cio-demographic characteristic s from the general population

PAGE 55

45 of Wakulla County. However, this does not mean that their attitudes misrepresent those of the surrounding community.

PAGE 56

46 CHAPTER 5 PLANNING IMPLICATI ONS AND CONCLUSIONS Research would do little good if it did not ai m to improve society. Therefore, it is important that the resu lts and discussion of this study be applied to the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process. Because scenic highway designation is led by community members and guided by the Florida Departme nt of Transportation, knowing more about the participant attitudes toward the process can help design more effective strategies for participant involvement. Byway designation is intended to be a part icipatory effort led by local community residents (FSHP 1993). Because the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) is the primary entity responsible for scenic highway de signation, it is important for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to ha ve a thorough understand ing of this group’s attitudes toward the process. Survey results in dicate participants feel it is important to have an accessible meeting process compos ed of a diverse representation of the community. FDOT should continue to stress the participatory-nature of the process because local involvement in byway planning and management is very important to CAG members. This is also an overarching pr inciple in scenic highway planning, and any alterations to make the process more structur ed should strongly consider how this affects local community control. The Florida Scenic Highways Program manual includes an outline for a Community Participation Program (CPP) for the designation process. The purpose of the CPP is to describe an approach to provide in formation as well as ga ther public input for a

PAGE 57

47 proposed corridor (FSHP 1993). Based on partic ipant attitudes, planning implications will be recommended that build upon FSHPM by adding more specific techniques for FDOT scenic highway coordinators to in crease the effectiveness of the CPP. Expand Role of Scenic Highways Coordinator The main FDOT representative who provi des assistance to communities in the Big Bend region of Florida interested in scen ic highway designation is the Florida FDOT District 3 Environmental Specialist. The envi ronmental specialist se rves as the scenic highways coordinator of that area and can be in fluential in the tone of the participation, which may affect the success of the CAG and ultimately the scenic highway. Although the survey did not directly ask participants a bout the coordinator, he or she can influence many of the items CAG members found importa nt. For instance, participants found the disclosure of information to be of highe st importance followed closely by diverse participants and having open communication. Currently, 15% of the FDOT environmental specialist’s time is allocated toward working with communities to designate scenic highways. It is not only important that the specialist has the resources needed for assi sting communities but also has the skills needed to work collaboratively with communities interested in designation. At some points in the process, 15% of the environmen tal specialist’s job is likely adequate, but when a region begins the designation process, this role might need to be expanded. The following recommendations are designed for FDOT environmental specialists serving as scenic highway coordinators to help improve their resources and advising capabilities with communities.

PAGE 58

48 Increase Diversity Participants indicated that having access to the designa tion process was the most important principle of public participation. CAG members al so indicated that having a diversity of community members represented in the in the planni ng of the byway was important, yet data show the CAG is not as di verse as the county. Increasing the access to the planning process can potentially add to the diversity of participants involved in designation. This could be accomplished by deve loping additional strate gies targeting the promotion of the byway to underrepresented groups in the co mmunity. Clearly, the strategies used were not e nough to attract a diverse CAG. It may help for the scenic highways coordinator to facili tate the partnerships of CAGs with local chambers of commerce, business and civic organizations in order to gain support fo r advertising to the community about the scenic highway meetings and membership in the CAG. As these results show, access and diverse representa tion is an important aspect of public participation and was not sufficient. Disclose Information Participants believed the most important characteristic of the scenic byway meetings was having a full disclosure of in formation. This can potentially increase transparency and the trust of participants in the process. Scenic hi ghway coordinators can provide information to CAGs by regularly attending meetings and answering all questions posed by participants. Further, c oordinators can give members opportunities to provide feedback at the end of the meeting. Members can be given feedback forms to comment on management plans, the organizati on of the meetings, as well as make openended suggestions. Also, as communities devel op CAGs, the coordinator could work with

PAGE 59

49 select CAG members to develop brochures and websites that provide key information specific to that region’s involvement in scenic highway designation. The current Scenic Highways Program Manua l provides a great deal of information to the CAG about the designation process. Beca use of the amount of detail in the manual, most CAG members may not be willing to wade through the material. The current website on scenic highway designation also does not allow users to easily access information on the process. FDOT can develop workshops, and a website and handbook that gives brief pertinent information on the de signation process, the role of the CAG, and the characteristics of the scenic highway. This would enable all CAG members, local businesses, and community residents to be tter access important information without having to navigate through the program manual. Information that could be addressed in the handbook and website should include mate rial pertinent to the principles and characteristics members valued highly; access to the process and disclosure of information. purpose(s) of the byway, the purpose of the public involvement process, how to be involved in the planning process, how individuals and groups can request more information, status of designation efforts Structure Meetings A legitimate and fair public involvement process requires th at participants are able to affect the structure of the discourse and outcomes of decision-making. Because collective efficacy was influenced by participan ts’ attitudes toward th eir ability to operate according to consensus, representation, gender, and education, scenic highway coordinators should design stra tegies to manage for these accordingly. Collective efficacy

PAGE 60

50 is a function of how well the group perceives they can accomplish certain goals and tasks related to the planning process. This incl udes working together and each member doing his or her part to achieve the goal of designation. Since s cenic highway designation is inherently a participatory process, it is up to the community members to design the structure of the CAG meetings. Scenic highw ay coordinators might be able to offer planning strategies to increase collectiv e efficacy in the CAG by providing more elements of a participatory process. The FSHPM suggests th at byway meetings should have an agenda and a meeting officiant; however, more specific guidance would help produce a more effective meeting process. S uggested techniques based on the principles and characteristics of pub lic participation include: Promoting constructive in teraction (Principle #3) 1a) CAGs could develop ground rules including how the process and final decisions will be made as well as how to insure that all perspectives are considered. 1b) Ask participants to provide their perceived potential positive and negative impacts of the scenic byway at the opening of community information sessions. Item relating to power. Make efforts to ensure that individual participants or groups of individuals (in rela tion to gender as well) do not dominate the process or discussion Develop rules about acceptable behavior (Principle #7) Leaders should decide how CAG members should provide res ponses during meeting discussions. Access to information (Principle #5) Provide information from a communitywide survey to all CAG members allowi ng them to consider the attitudes of community residents and make better decisions. Conclusion The participatory nature of scenic high way designation allows the people who are most affected by the impacts of designation to guide the process. FDOT already provides assistance to communities moving through the pr ocess of designation through the Florida

PAGE 61

51 Scenic Highways Program Manual and the scen ic highway coordinator. To make better use of these resources, this research suggests the following activities are important to participants. These suggestions should be incorporated in wa ys that will not take away from local community control over de signation, but allow communities to access information that will help them bette r achieve a more quality process. Designing meeting times and locations that can help provide access to a diversity of community members Disclosing information about the designati on process, and gathering information from the community. Providing a meeting structure that promotes constructive interaction and attempts to purposely limit dominati on by individual and groups. The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSH P) is designed to be a participatory process that is led by residents along the proposed roadway corr idor (FSHP 1995). The FSHP has designed a comprehensive program manual to guide the Corridor Advocacy Group through the process of gaining comm unity support and moving through the formal designation application. As new insights become available, it is important for the FDOT to provide the best possible resources to guide communities through scenic highway designation. This research has added to that effort by concentrati ng on representation in the CAG, perceptions of the structure of th e process, and its effect on group efficacy. The overall purpose of this research was to evaluate the atti tudes of a group of community residents (CAG) participating in the Big Bend Scenic Byway (BBSB) designation process. A political approach provides a good perspective from which to evaluate these attitudes. This is because the designation process was designed to gather perspectives from a wide variety of reside nts, and has many similar characteristics to

PAGE 62

52 other decision-making forums discussed in political science and environmental policy literature. The results detailed in this thesis confirm past research that representation in US community planning is often composed of residents who have different sociodemographics from the surrounding area. On e of the key areas of disagreement surrounding this issue is whether or not th e attitudes of the surrounding community are misrepresented. Some authors have suggested that values of the average citizens are washed out by the dominance of people repres enting interest groups. Others have found that interest groups can approxi mate the public’s attitudes adeq uately. In either case, the only method of determining this is through th e use of further social research that compares the views of participants of pl anning forums and the surrounding community residents. In order for the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process to maintain its legitimacy, a survey should be conducted of the population in each county where the byway is proposed to intersect. The CAG c ould gather information from the community on how to represent their interests. This study indicates that although the members do not represent the entire commun ity, their attitudes do not re flect an interest groups’ perspective. The legitimacy of public participation is not only linked to th e representation of average citizens’ views, but also to ho w the structure of the process promotes empowerment of the participants. Principles of public involvement can be used to guide the discourse of institutions and citizens th at will produce processes and outcomes that are seen as more favorable a nd competent to all involved.

PAGE 63

53 To determine which principles can positively influence legitimacy, more research must be conducted that gathers information directly from the participants themselves. Participants involved in various kinds of participation forums may place importance on different principles. Sampling la rger populations can allow the us e of factor analysis that statistically groups characteristic s of public participation into relevant domains. This can further lead theorists to refine the principles (such as power) to reflect better relationships among individual variables. The role of efficacy in participatory pub lic participation research is not well defined. Although some work has been conducte d on political efficacy in terms of voting, collective efficacy related to pa rticipatory democratic processes is not well established. This research has identified some of the charact eristics and principles of the participation process that have an effect on participants’ collective efficacy. Further investigation is warranted to determine if other structural el ements also have an effect. This may help community planners to design better strategi es that can increase the ability of group decision-making. Improving the discourse between participan ts and decision-makers is a continuing effort that grows incrementally with each study and community-planning event. The case of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation proc ess serves as a step toward the goal of developing a set of criteria th at represent the ideal communication structure of decisionmaking processes. The importance of citizen participation is well substantiated by philosophers, scientists, professionals, and mostly by the average individuals who seek to give their input to influence the policies th at affect them. The Florida Department of Transportation can improve the success of s cenic highway designation by providing an

PAGE 64

54 open process that discloses information, and is seen as fair and legitimate to the CAG participants and the surrounding community. Finally, several variables had an effect on individual member’s perception of the ability of CAG as a whole. Participants’ fa ith in having consensus as a part of the designation process and the having equal repr esentation both had a positive relationship with collective efficacy. However, the level of education and gende r both indicated that females and participants with higher education tended to perc eive the collective efficacy of the CAG as low

PAGE 65

APPENDIX A BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY CORRI DOR ADVOCACY GROUP SURVEY

PAGE 66

56Big Bend Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy Group Survey The goal of this study is to understand residents’ attitudes toward public participation in local planning as well as the potential impacts of the proposed Big Bend Scenic Byway to this area of Florida. Your participation is greatly appreciated. People may have a number of reasons for part icipating in community planning processes. Listed below are some possible reasons you may have for participating in the Corridor A dvocacy Group (CAG) scenic byway meetings. Please indicate how important each reason is to you fo r participating in the CAG by circling a number 15. 1 being Not Important At All and a 5 being Extremely Important I participate in the CAG to…. Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Extremely Important Be more involved with my community 1 2 3 4 5 Learn new things from other members 1 2 3 4 5 Help preserve the small-town character of this community 1 2 3 4 5 Make the community a better place to live 1 2 3 4 5 Learn and develop new skills 1 2 3 4 5 Have input into community issues 1 2 3 4 5 Gain a stronger sense of community togetherness 1 2 3 4 5 Be with people whom I enjoy 1 2 3 4 5 Help change this community within an organized group 1 2 3 4 5 Influence government policies 1 2 3 4 5 Meet other members of my community 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 67

57 I participate in the CAG to…. Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Extremely Important Have a more stable community economy 1 2 3 4 5 Do something more fulfilling than my current job 1 2 3 4 5 Become more vocal about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5 Learn more about what happens in this community 1 2 3 4 5 Meet new people with similar interests 1 2 3 4 5 Further my job or career 1 2 3 4 5 Feel like I make a difference 1 2 3 4 5 Solve a specific problem of concern to me 1 2 3 4 5 Help preserve the surrounding natural areas 1 2 3 4 5 Fulfill my duty as a community member 1 2 3 4 5 Other: 1 2 3 4 5 2. Different aspects of public participation may help to gover n and direct a public meeting or a public decision-making proce ss. Below are some aspects that may be important to you. Please indicate how important you believe the following statement s are as they relate to the Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy Group meetings. 1 being Not Important At All and a 5 being Extremely Important

PAGE 68

58 Characteristics of Public Participation Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Extremely Important Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted. 1 2 3 4 5 Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making comments. 1 2 3 4 5 Give advance notice of meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information 1 2 3 4 5 Conduct meetings at convenient locations. 1 2 3 4 5 Develop rules about acceptable behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 Foster an atmosphere of open communication. 1 2 3 4 5 Gather local knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 Allow participants to review the information presented at the meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 Develop relationships that encourage future participation. 1 2 3 4 5 Have a diversity of community members represented at the meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn detailed information about the issues being discussed. 1 2 3 4 5 Put all concerns on the agenda. 1 2 3 4 5 Conduct meetings at convenient times. 1 2 3 4 5 Build trust among participants. 1 2 3 4 5 Fully disclose information. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 69

59 Characteristics of Public Participation Not At All Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Extremely Important Allow people who are most affected to have the most representation. 1 2 3 4 5 Conduct meetings according to consensus. 1 2 3 4 5 Prevent any one group from having too much influence. 1 2 3 4 5 Other ____ 1 2 3 4 5 3. Next, we want to understand how effective you feel the CAG has been in reaching the following goals. Please indicate your opinions about these by circling a number 1-7. 1 being Not at all and a 7 being A Great Deal. How able are the CAG members to…… Not At All Somewhat Moderately A Great Deal write a designation plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 come to the meetings ready to work 1 23 45 67 successfully effect change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work together to achieve the common goal 1 23 45 67 hold meetings convenient for working people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 access information about the community’s needs1 23 45 67

PAGE 70

60 How able are the CAG members to…… Not At All Somewhat Moderately A Great Deal work together in the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 promote the byway to the community 1 23 45 67 stay on task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work collaboratively 1 23 45 67 give every member an opportunity to contribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work through difficult impasses 1 23 45 67 operate according to consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 give equal consideration of all issues presented 1 23 45 67 have the skills to achieve the designation goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Other _______________________________ 1 23 45 67 4. For the following questions we are interested in how much effect you believe you personally had on the CAG. Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being No Effect and a 5 being Much Effect. How much were you able to….. No Effect Very Little Effect Some Effect Moderate Effect Much Effect influence the decisions of the group 1 2 3 4 5 contribute to the writing of the designation plan 1 2 3 4 5 promote the designation of the byway to other citizens 1 2 3 4 5 express your views on important byway decisions 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 71

61How much were you able to….. No Effect Very Little Effect Some Effect Moderate Effect Much Effect get other citizens involved in the byway designation process 1 2 3 4 5 Other______________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 5. Community members may have differing opinions about the amount of control they have over certain aspects of their community. Indicate how much you feel your community is able to influence the following by circling a number 1-9 People in this community can….. None Very Little Some Influence Quite a Lot A Great Deal control the level of tourism development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 control the management of the surrounding natural resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 influence local government decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 preserve the aesthetic value of the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 keep our surroundings beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 effectively preserve our cultural heritage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 preserve the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 show that they are great neighbors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ensure the same level of friendliness remains in our community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 effectively protect wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 72

62 6. We would like to know how you feel about your community. For each of the following statements, please indicate how much you agree or disagree. Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree I am definitely part of this community. 1 2 3 4 5 If I had to move from my community now, I would be sorry to leave it. 1 2 3 4 5 I am interested in what happens in this community. 1 2 3 4 5 I plan to be living in this community 5 years from now. 1 2 3 4 5 If I could keep the home I have right now, but move to another community, in the area I probably would. 1 2 3 4 5 I have an emotional attachment to my community. 1 2 3 4 5 I am willing to invest my time and talent to make the community an even better place. 1 2 3 4 5 What happens in the community is important to me 1 2 3 4 5 I am willing to make financial sacrifices for the sake my community. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 73

637. Next we would like to zero in to your specific neighborhood. For each of the following statements please indicate the likelihood of each of the situations by circling a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree. I would ask a neighbor to…. Very Unlikely Neutral Very Likely Watch my house while I’m away 1 2 3 4 5 Borrow something 1 2 3 4 5 Help in an emergency 1 2 3 4 5 Offer advice about a personal problem 1 2 3 4 5 Discuss a problem in the neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 8. What aspect of living in your community do you most identify with? ( Please mark one ) The friendships and social connections The physical/natural landscape The values, culture(s), and ways of life

PAGE 74

649. Please indicate how much you agree that each of the following statements should be part of a scenic byway plan in the Big B end area. Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree. The Big Bend Scenic Byway should…. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Provide education and interpretation of the culture and natural resources along the byway 1 2 3 4 5 Maintain the rural and scenic nature of the byway route 1 2 3 4 5 Be promoted to attract visitors 1 2 3 4 5 Increase tourism in the area 1 2 3 4 5 Be managed to protect it from increased visitor use 1 2 3 4 5 Add to the management problems of local government 1 2 3 4 5 Have the support of local citizens 1 2 3 4 5 Help preserve the historic and natural resources along the route 1 2 3 4 5 Have citizen involvement in the planning and management of the byway 1 2 3 4 5 Other ____________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 75

6510. Economic issues are an important aspect to the quality of lif e in a community by affecting the standard of living of the ci tizens who live there. One of the biggest effects of tourism is its ec onomic impact on the community. Please answer the following questi ons. a. How likely would your household income change, if the number of tourists increased in the Big Bend area? Please circle a number 1-7. 1 being Not At All Likely and 7 being Extremely Likely. Not at all Extremely Likely Likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. What percent of your current income comes from money s pent by tourists to the Big Bend area? Provide your best estimate. ___% of total income 11. Next, we would like to know your opinion about touris m and how you feel it would effect you and your community. For each of the following statements, please indicate how much you feel things would get better or worse for you if tour ism were to increase in your community Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Get Much Worse and a 5 being Get Much Better Community Issues Get much Worse Neutral Get much Better Opportunities for shopping 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities for recreation 1 2 3 4 5 The crime rate 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic congestion, litter, and noise 1 2 3 4 5 Public services such as police and fire protection 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of local culture 1 2 3 4 5 Relationships between residents and tourists 1 2 3 4 5 The quality of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities for employment 1 2 3 4 5 Revenues for local governments 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 76

66 Community Issues Get much Worse Neutral Get much Better The price of goods and services 1 2 3 4 5 Increase in the cost of land and housing 1 2 3 4 5 Access for local people to places and events 1 2 3 4 5 The values and lifestyles of local people 1 2 3 4 5 How much I feel at home in this community 1 2 3 4 5 Local peoples’ control of the community 1 2 3 4 5 The general appearance of the region 1 2 3 4 5 Finally, we are interested in understanding who participates in the Scenic Byway designation process. Please be aware that you r responses will be kept completely confidential. 12. Are you? male OR female 13. What is the year of your birth? 19____ 14. What town do you live in? _________________ 15. How many years have you lived there? _________years 16. Please list the community groups you are a member of, su ch as: school related, religious, civic, service, hobby oriented, organized sports for children, organized sports for adults, neighborhood, etc. 17. How many hours a month do you participate in the above community groups? ____ hours a month 18. Which of the above groups, if any, did you represent at the CAG? Group(s) :_______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

PAGE 77

67 19. Which of these best describes your race or ethnic group? (Check all that apply) American Indian or Alaskan Native Latino or Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Caucasian African American Other (please specify)______________ 20. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please mark one) Eighth Grade or less Some College Some High School College Graduate High School Graduate or GED Some Graduate School or beyond Trade/Technical/Vocational training Graduate Degree 21. What was your approximate total household income, before taxes, in 2001? Less than 10,000 60,000 to 69,999 10,000 to 19,999 70,000 to 79,999 20,000 to 29,999 80,000 to 89,999 30,000 to 39,999 90,000 to 99,999 40,000 to 49,999 100,000 or more 50,000 to 59,999 In the space below, please include any comments you may have. Thank you again for your time and assistance in this important project. Thank You For Your Participation!

PAGE 78

68 APPENDIX B MAP OF STUDY AREA

PAGE 79

69 APPENDIX C CORRELATIONS OF INDICIES A ND ITEMS FOR LOGIT ANALYSIS Table 9. Correlations of Principl es and Collective Efficacy Index ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 10. Correlations of Characteristics of P ublic Participation and Collective Efficacy Index Collective Efficacy Index Develop relationships that encourage future participation. Conduct meetings according to consensus Collective Efficacy Index Pearson Correlation 1.000 .414** .504** Sig .004 .000 N 46 46 44 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Collective Efficacy Index Principle 6 (Develop Relationships that Encourage Future Participation) Collective Efficacy Index Pearson Correlation1.000 .385** Sig. .008 N 47 46

PAGE 80

70Table 11. Correlations of Items Used in Collective Efficacy index successfully effect change stay on task work collaboratively give every member an opportunity to contribute work through difficult impasses operate according to consensus successfully effect change Pearson Correlation 1.000 .806** .810** .811** .849** .820** Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 41 40 38 40 39 38 stay on task Pearson Correlation .806** 1.000 .912** .846** .803** .798** Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 40 44 41 43 42 41 work collaboratively Pearson Correlation .810** .912** 1.000 .814** .799** .813** Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 38 41 41 40 40 39 give every member an opportunity to contribute Pearson Correlation .811** .846** .814** 1.000 .894** .873** Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 40 43 40 44 42 40 work through difficult impasses Pearson Correlation .849** .803** .799** .894** 1.000 .911** Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 39 42 40 42 42 40 operate according to consensus Pearson Correlation .820** .798** .813** .873** .911** 1.000 Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 38 41 39 40 40 42 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 81

APPENDIX D MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

PAGE 82

72Table 12. Importance of CAG Meeting Characteristics Characteristics of Public Participation Mean1Not At All Important (%) Somewhat Important (%) Important (%) Very Important (%) Extremely Important (%) Fully disclose information 4.29 2.0 17.6 29.4 51.0 Have a diversity of community members represented at the meetings 4.24 3.9 15.7 33.3 47.1 Foster an atmosphere of open communication 4.22 23.5 31.4 45.1 Give advance notice of mee tings 4.20 2.0 18.0 38.0 42.0 Prevent any one group from having too much in influence 4.14 3.9 17.6 39.2 39.2 Conduct meetings at convenient times 4.12 23.5 41.2 35.3 Gather local knowledge 4.10 2 23.5 35.3 39.2 Build trust among participants 4.10 3.9 21.6 35.3 39.2 Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information 4.06 3.9 23.5 35.3 37.3 Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making comments 4.02 27.5 37.3 33.3 Conduct meetings at convenient locations 4.02 2.0 29.4 33.3 35.3 Develop relationships that encourage fu ture participation 3.98 2 27.5 39.2 31.4 Allow participants to review the information presented at the meeting 3.92 3.9 27.5 41.2 Allow participants to have th e opportunity to learn detailed information about the issues being discussed 3.86 10.0 26.0 32.0 32.0 Develop rules about acceptable behavior 3.69 3.9 7.8 29.4 33.3 25.5 Put all concerns on the agenda 3.65 3.9 3.9 33.3 41.2 17.6 Conduct meetings according to consensus 3.14 6.1 18.4 38.8 28.6 8.2 Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted 3.04 12.0 24.0 24.0 28.0 12.0 Allow people who are most affected to have the most representation 2.90 16.0 26.0 28.0 12.0 18.0

PAGE 83

APPENDIX E MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF COLLECTIVE EFICACY ITEMS

PAGE 84

74Table 13. Collective Efficacy Items Not At All (%) Somewhat (%) Moderately (%) Very Able (%) How able are the CAG members to…. n Mean1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Come to meeting ready to work 43 5.81 2.3 4.7 7.0 11.6 44.230.2 Have the skills to achieve the designatio n goal 42 5.74 7.1 14.316.7 21.440.5 Work collaboratively 41 5.68 4.9 12.222.0 31.729.3 Give every member an opportunity to contribute 44 5.68 2.3 4.5 11.415.9 34.131.8 Promote the byway to the community 46 5.67 2.2 6.5 6.5 21.7 30.432.6 Work together in the future 44 5.64 6.8 9.1 18.2 45.520.5 Stay on task 44 5.64 6.8 11.425.0 25.031.8 Hold meetings convenient for working people 46 5.57 8.7 13.017.4 34.826.1 Work together to achieve the common goal 45 5.56 4.4 2.2 8.9 22.2 37.824.4 Operate according to consensus 42 5.50 2.4 2.4 4.8 9.5 26.2 23.831.0 Work through difficult impasses 42 5.33 2.4 2.4 7.1 9.5 23.8 35.719.0 Write a designation plan 41 5.32 22.07.3 9.8 39.022.0 Successfully affect change 41 5.24 2.4 7.3 14.624.4 39.012.2 Give equal consideration of all issues presented 43 5.19 7.0 2.3 4.7 14.016.3 34.920.9 Access information about the community’s needs 44 5.16 6.8 6.8 18.2 15.929.5

PAGE 85

75 REFERENCES Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participat ion. Journal of the Am erican Institute of Planners, 35(4):216-224. Ashford, N and Rest, K. 1999. Public Partic ipation in Contaminated Communities. (Report) Center for Technology, Poli cy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2):117-148. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of human agen cy through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychologi cal Science, 9(3):75-78. Berman, E. 1997. Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Ad ministration Review, 57(2): 105-112. Barach, P. 1967. The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Little Brown: Boston. Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmenta l Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: The C onservation Foundation. Blahna, D, and Yonts-Shepherd, S. 1989. P ublic involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources, 2(3):209-227. Burke, E. 1968. Citizen particip ation strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(5):287-294. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W.A. 1954. The Voter Decides New York: Wiley. Carroll, J.M., and Reese, D.D. 2003. Comm unity collective efficacy: Structure and consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii International Conference on System Scie nces, HICSS-36 (January 6-9, Kona).

PAGE 86

76 Chess, C. and Purcell K. 1999. Public part icipation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environment Scie nce and Technology, 33(16):2685-2692. Cupps, D.S. 1977. Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration, 37(5):478-487. Daneke,. G.G., Garcia M.W., and Priscoli, J.D. 1983. Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment. Boulder: Westview Press. Desario, J., and Langston, S. 1987. Toward a Me tapolicy for Social Planning In: Citizen Participation in Public Decision Maki ng. Desario, J and S. Langston eds. Greenwood Press: Westport, 205-221. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Survey s: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Drysek, J. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Po litics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fiorino, D. 1989. Environmental risk and demo cratic processes: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Envi ronmental Law, 14(2):501-547. Foucault, M. 1988. The Ethic of Care For Th e Self as a Practice of Freedom. In: The Final Foucault, eds. J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2-20. FSHP 1996. Florida Scenic Highways Progr am Manual, Florida Department of Transportation Central Environmental Office and Transportation Consulting Groups, INC. Revised by: Carter & Burgess, INC. Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Qu iescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Goddard, R. D. & Goddard, Y. L. 2001. A Multilevel Analysis of the Influence of Collective Efficacy on Teacher Efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7):807-818 Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action – Vol.1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, Beacon Press. Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action – Vol. 2: System and Lifeworld. Boston. Beacon Press. Hadden, S.G. 1991. Public perception of hazard ous waste. Risk Analysis, 11(1):47-57. Huntington, S. 1970. The democratic distem per. The Public Interest, 41:9-38 Kasperson, R.E. 1994. Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3):275-281.

PAGE 87

77 Kozub, S. and McDonnell, J. 2000. Explori ng the relationship between cohesion and collective efficacy in rugby teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(2):120-130. Laird, F.L. 1993. Participatory analysis, de mocracy, and technological decision-making. Science. Technology, and Human Values, 18(3):341-361. Lynn, F.M. 1990. Public participation in risk management decisions: The right to define, the right to know, and the right to act. Ri sk Issues in Health and Safety, 1:95-101. Lynn F.M., and Busenberg, G.D. 1995. The Redemption of the Citizen Advisory Committees: A Perspective from Critical Theory. In: Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation – Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiederman, eds. Dord echt: Kluwer Acedemic Publishers, 87102. Mill, J.S. 1873. Considerations on Represen tative Government. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Moore, S. 1996. Defining “successful” envir onmental dispute resolution: Case studies from public land planning in the United States and Australi a. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(2):151-169. Moote, M. A. and McClaran, M.P. 1997. Imp lications of participatory democracy for public land planning. Journal of Range Management, 50(5):473-481. Moynihan, D. 1969. Maximum Feasible Mis understanding. New York: Maximillian. Overdevest, C. 2000. Participatory democracy, representative democracy, and the nature of diffuse and concentrated interests. Society and Natura l Resources, 13(7):685699. Palerm, J. 1999. Public participation in envi ronmental decision-making: Examining the Aarhus Convention. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 1(2):229-244. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Demo cratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romanillos-Palerm. 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment: An Empirical Theoretical Evaluative Fram ework. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London. Rosenbaum, N. 1978. Citizen participation and democratic theory; in: S. Langton (ed.) Citizen Participation in America, Lexington Books: Lexington, 43-54 Rousseau, J.J. 1968 (1762). The Social C ontract. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

PAGE 88

78 Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., and Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoos and violent crime: A multi level study of collective efficacy. Science, 227(5328):918-924. Schweitzer M, Canes S.A., Peelle, B. E. 1996. Measuring the Success of Public Participation Efforts Associated with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Management Activities. Pape r presented at the National Association of Environmental Professionals 21st Annual Conference, June 2-6, 1996. Houston, TX. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1990. Scientific me thod, anti-foundationalism, and public policy. Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, 1:23-41. Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H. 1996. Understa nding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Syme, G.J., and Sadler, B.S. 1994. Evaluation of public invol vement in water resources planning: A researcher-practitioner di alogue. Evaluation Review, 18(5):523-542. Thomas, J.C. 1990. Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a borrowed theory. Public Admi nistration Review, 50:435-445. Tuler, S., and Webler, T. 1999. Voices from th e forest: What participants expect from a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources, 12(5):437-453. Webler, T. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. eds. O. Re nn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press. Webler, T., Tuler, S., and Krueger, R. 2001. What is a good public pa rticipation process? Five perspectives from the public. En vironmental Management, 27(3):435-450. Wilson, J.Q. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books. Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yafee. 1994. Bu ilding bridges across agency boundaries: In search of excellence in the USFS. A rese arch report submitted to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Stati on, in fulfillment of USDA Forest Service cooperative agreement PNW 92-0215. Ann Arbor: School of Natural Resources and the Environment, Un iversity of Michigan

PAGE 89

79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Noah M. Standridge graduated with a b achelor’s degree in elementary education from the University of Florida in 1998. Con tinuing at UF to receive a master’s degree in forestry, he specialized in the social research of natural resources. Mr. Standridge desires to continue his career thr ough teaching and service to ot hers. Some of his favorite hobbies are mountain climbing, caving, and kaya king, and he hopes to possibly integrate these into his career as well. He is happily married to Brinly Standridge and has one son, Micah.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000968/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Normative Aspects of Public Participation in Community Planning: A Case Study of the Big Bend Scenic Byway
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000968:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000968/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Normative Aspects of Public Participation in Community Planning: A Case Study of the Big Bend Scenic Byway
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000968:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EXAMINING THE NORMATIVE ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
COMMUNITY PLANNING: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY
















By

NOAH STANDRIDGE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































Copyright 2003

by

Noah Standridge

































To my wife and partner in this adventure.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My time in graduate school has been filled with challenges that have at times

seemed impossible to overcome. The counsel of Dr. Martha Monroe, Dr. Janaki

Alavalapati, Dr. Rhonda Phillips, and Dr. George Blakeslee has helped to me to

overcome obstacles and reach the goal. I am grateful for them and hope that I can give

my time and effort to others as they have to me. This research could not have been

conducted without the financial assistance of Dr. Taylor Stein and the Florida

Department of Transportation.

Finally, and the place of honor, I offer to my wife Brinly all that is within my heart

and strength to show my appreciation for the time she has labored together with me. She

is exactly the "help-meet" and partner that I need in this world. I hope that I can serve her

the rest of my life as well.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

L IS T O F T A B L E S ................. ........................................................ ............ ................. ... v ii

L IST O F F IG U R E S ................................................................ ...... .... .... ............ .. viii

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Problem Statem ent .................. ............................. .. ........... ............. ..
Study A rea and B background ........................................................................... .... ... 3
Research Objectives and H ypotheses ........................................ ....................... 7
O bjectiv es ................................................................... ............................. . 7
H y p oth eses ....................................................... 7
Rationale For Study ....................... .................. ..... .. ................. .7

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... ..............9

H historical Public Participation ......................................................... ..................... 9
Participatory D em ocracy Theory........................................... .......... ............... 11
R representative D em ocracy ............................................................. .............. 14
Sum m ary of Theories ................................................... .................................. 14
Success In Public Participation..................... ....... ............................ 16
Principles of Public Participation ........................................ .......... ............... 17
C collective E efficacy ............................................ .. .. ............. ......... 19
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................2 0

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 22

S tu d y A rea ................................................................2 2
S tu d y P o p u latio n ................................................................................................... 2 2
Survey D esign................................................... 23
P ilo t T e stin g .....................................................................................................2 4
Survey P procedures ...............................................................24
L im itatio n s o f Stu dy ............................................................................................. 2 5
P reparation of V ariables .................................................................... .................. 26


v









Objective One ........................................................................... ......... ........................26
Objective Tw o ................ .............. ................. ........... 28
Obj active Three ............ .... ..... .. .... ............. ............... 29

4 RESULTS AND DISCU SSION ........................................... .......................... 31

O bj ectives ............................................................................................................. 31
Survey R response R ate .................................... ............ ....... ......... 1
P rin ciples of P articip ation ................................................................ .....................3 1
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of CAG Members ..........................................34
Collective Efficacy and Principles......................................... ......................... 39
C onclu sion .............. ..................................................................... ..... ... .... 44

5 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................46

Expand Role of Scenic Highways Coordinator ....................... ........ .....................47
Increase D diversity ................. .................................. ...... ........ .. ............. 48
D disclose Inform action ........................................ .... ....... .... ....... 48
Structure M meetings ............. ................. .................. .......... .. ............ 49
C o n c lu sio n ...................... .. ............. .. ....................................................5 0

APPENDIX

A BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY CORRIDOR ADVOCACY GROUP SURVEY .....55

B M A P O F STU D Y A R E A ................................................................ .....................68

C CORRELATIONS OF INDICIES AND ITEMS FOR LOGIT ANALYSIS ............69

D MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF PUBLIC PARTICIPA TION ...................................... ................ .................. 71

E MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF COLLECTIVE EFICACY ITEMS.................. 73

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ ........................................................... .. 7 5

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................79
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

1 Principles of Public Participation. ........................................ ......................... 18

2 D ata G gathering Schedule............................................................... .....................25

3 Principles Domains, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha...............................28

4 Collective Efficacy Index, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha......................30

5 Principles and Characteristics of Public Participation ...........................................32

6 Means of the Principles and Power Items ..... ...............................................33

7 Regression equation, Dependent Variable, and Independent Variables ..................40

8 Coefficient, Standard Error, Significance, and Aggregated Elasticity...................42

9 Correlations of Principles and Collective Efficacy Index........................................69

10 Correlations of Characteristics of Public Participation and Collective Efficacy
In d ex ...................................... .................................................... 6 9

11 Correlations of Items Used in Collective Efficacy index......................................70

12 Importance of CAG Meeting Characteristics................... .... ............... 72

13 Collective Efficacy Item s ........................................................... ............... 74
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1 B ig B end Scenic B yw ay ........ ................. ................. .................... ............... 5

2 W akulla County, Florida ........................ ................... .................. ............... 23

3 CAG Participants and Wakulla County Residents Age
D isp e rsio n ..................................................... ................ 3 5

4 Ethnicity of CAG Participants and Wakulla County Residents.............................36

5 Level Of Education of CAG Members and Wakulla County Residents .................37

6 Annual Incom e of CAG Participants ............................................ ............... 38

7 Annual Income of Wakulla County Residents......................... ................38















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science

EXAMINING THE NORMATIVE ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
COMMUNITY PLANNING: A CASE STUDY OF THE BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY

By

Noah Standridge

August 2003

Chair: Martha Monroe
Cochair: Janaki Alavalapati
Major Department: School of Forest Resources and Conservation

Public participation continues to be a topic of debate in research literature and

professional publications as practitioners and theorists define what structural principles

should guide public involvement. Little consensus exists on what elements should

comprise those principles. Further, very little formal investigation has occurred to

determine what principles are important to participants. No evaluation has occurred to

determine which principles are most or least important to those involved or how those

principles affect the collective efficacy of individuals.

This research has explored three aspects of public participation associated with the

designation of the Florida Big Bend Scenic Byway. The socio-demographics of the

participants involved in the planning were compared with the surrounding community to

determine if participants represented the surrounding community. Structural principles of

the process were evaluated to determine which aspects were most important to

individuals. Participant attitudes toward the structure of the designation process were









evaluated to investigate the effect of the structure on members' perceived collective

efficacy.

Results show that participants of the designation process were an elite group of

individuals whose socio-demographics differed from the general population of Wakulla

County, Florida. However, this elect group placed most value on getting community

members to the planning meetings. They placed least importance on having power over

the process and decision-making. Further, the importance of consensus, education,

representation, and gender was found to have an effect on the perceived ability of

participants to contribute to decision-making processes. These findings provide further

understanding of the values participants place on aspects of their participation in

community issues and can be used to help guide these processes in the future.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

How to engage citizens meaningfully and effectively in public decision-making

processes is one of the key issues facing policy makers today (Stern and Fineberg 1996).

It is widely accepted that citizens should be involved in community planning and

environmental decision-making. The challenge is how to design public involvement

forums that produce both sound policy outcomes and meet the democratic expectations of

all involved (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989; Dryzek 1990), creating an environment

for a positive and legitimate discourse.

Practitioners and theorists have explored success in public involvement forums,

finding that it is a function of both the decision-making outcomes and structural

characteristics of the process. Researchers have sought to define the specific criteria for

such success in public participation (Lynn and Busenberg 1995; Moore 1996), searching

for principles to guide public involvement. There is little consensus, however, about what

those principles should be (Tuler and Webler 1999). Moreover, professionals have

provided most of the input and very little has been received from the participants. Some

research has focused on how participants define successful outcomes of public

participation (Moore 1996), but very few studies have conducted research on how

participants define good principles in their own voices. Further, no evaluation of these

principles has occurred to determine which ones are more and less important and identify

their relationship to other variables.









This study investigates the normative aspects of public participation in community

and natural resource planning. Participation norms are those informally or formally and

unspoken or spoken rules of engagement that are agreed upon by the general consensus

of those involved. Principles are related to norms in that they represent the ideal

characteristics of the process structure and communication between decision-makers and

participants. Julian Habermas (1984, 1987) proposed an ideal discourse that could exist

between participants. Using Habermas' theory, Webler (1995) outlined the meta-criteria

of fairness and legitimacy that should exist in democratic processes. Further, Webler

suggested that specific principles might be developed out of these criteria that govern and

direct decision-making.

Based on these two works, Tuler and Webler (1999) investigated the normative

claims of Webler (1995), examining how participants define good principles in their own

voices. Their study gathered information from participants involved in a forest policy-

making process in New York. In that study, interviews were used to identify

characteristics of the process that were important to participants. Qualitative analysis

revealed seven principles. To progress a theory of public participation, they suggested

that identifying citizen' perceptions of the importance of the principles as well as how

they relate to socio-demographic characteristics should be the next steps in this area of

research.

Participant attitudes toward the principles may also influence their beliefs about

how efficacious the decision-making group is in attaining certain goals or performing

specific tasks related to the mission of the group. The perception of collective efficacy is

based on how capable a group of individuals or community can perform and may predict









how it will perform in the future (Carroll and Reese 2003). Past research has related the

deficiencies of socio-economic status to low levels of collective efficacy (Sampson et al.

1997). Research has also linked collective efficacy to how teachers feel a school is able to

accomplish certain corporate goals (Bandura 1997; Goddard and Goddard 2001). This

research can be linked as well to public participation forums where individuals can have a

perception of how the group is able or can achieve certain goals. It appears that current

research has not explored the relationship between collective efficacy and public of

participation. However, participant attitudes toward the structure of the process may have

a substantial effect on the ability of members to participate effectively in community

planning.

The context for exploring these aspects of participation is the Big Bend Scenic

Byway designation process, which is a part of the Florida Scenic Highways program. The

details of this program and the area in which it is located will be introduced in the

following section.

Study Area and Background

The primary intent of the Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) is to designate

existing roadway corridors in order to preserve, maintain, and enhance unique intrinsic

resources for the traveling public's enjoyment. It can also benefit communities along the

roadway corridor, providing resource protection, community recognition, economic

development/ tourism, partnering, and community visioning (FSHP 1996). The process

of designing a scenic highway is a participatory effort, led by local community residents,

to heighten awareness of Florida's history and intrinsic resources (FSHP 1996).

Currently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) provides communities

interested in scenic highway designation with several resources to assist them. The









Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual offers a detailed guide that leads communities

through the steps of designation. Grants are made available that can help support

community events featuring the proposed byway as well as technical experts. A resource

coordinator is available throughout the process and he/ she can offer communities

information and hands-on assistance.

This research is part of a larger project evaluating the Big Bend Scenic Byway

(BBSB) designation process over a period of three years (Figure 1). The project will

gather information from participants involved in the planning of the byway as well as

measure community attitudes toward economic development, tourism, and the

effectiveness of public meetings to generate support for the byway. The byway is

currently proposed to travel through Wakulla, Leon, and Franklin counties. All counties

have expressed interest in the byway, however, Wakulla County is the only county that

has moved ahead with the process, promoting the byway to the community and forming

the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). This group of is composed of community residents

currently involved in the designation of the BBSB.

Communities in the region have historically used the harvesting of timber and

marine life as major sources of income. In the past two decades, regulations affecting

harvestable areas and extraction amounts have led to significant reductions in regional

income. In response, local, state and national agencies have looked for new sources of

revenue for the citizens. One of the strategies is to increase tourism by promoting the area

through the development of a Florida Scenic Highway.

The Apalachee Savannah's Scenic Highway (ASSH) is currently a designated

section of roadway in Liberty County located in the Apalachicola National Forest (the











largest National Forest in Florida with over 564,000 acres). The BBSB will extend from


the southern terminus of the Apalachee Savannah's Corridor, which runs along the


forest's western flank. It will then travel east along the coastline, diverging north to the


center of the forest and east to the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. The corridor of


the BBSB was chosen for its natural beauty and historic resources. The Apalachicola


National Forest has many rivers and streams providing a steady freshwater flow to


estuaries known for shellfish and other commercial seafood. Portions of the forest contain


cypress, oak, and magnolias. Stands of slash and longleaf pines cover the sandhills, and


flatwoods provide habitat for the largest population of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the


world.











Apalachicola Nat ,



Tal. rates Hell
S H Lt State'" Fore Proposed
S talte Fr ,F Big Bend Scenic Byway
Frakli- .... Existing Scenic Byway. USDA Forest Service Phase
M Proposed Extension of Byway Corrdor, Phase II
SUS Forest Service Land
US Fish & Wildlie Lands
S ent~ FL Division of Frestry Lands
S- Railroad us Hghway
.-County LUne State Road
fMunicipalities Count y noad




Figure 1. Big Bend Scenic Byway

Many other qualities make the Apalachicola region unique. The Gulf of Mexico


borders it on the south, and Highway 98 extends along the shore for many miles, offering


spectacular views. Freshwater springs dot the area, including the Spring Creek, which is a









collection of up to 14 springs with a combined output of nearly 1.25 billion gallons a day,

billowing up from the Gulf near the town Saint Marks, making it the largest spring in

Florida by over 250%. Various state forests, geological sites, and a National Wildlife

Refuge add to the scenic and natural beauty.

Residents of Wakulla County have been the most proactive among the three

counties in initiating the designation process. They may consider the BBSB as an

opportunity to diversify and expand their economy. Some Franklin County residents

seem to be hesitant of increasing promotion of the area. Tourism is already a strong

component of the county's economy, and residents may be leery of attracting more. Leon

has the smallest portion of the byway and the largest population; many residents may not

even be aware of the planning efforts.

The BBSB designation process was designed by the FSHP to be participatory in its

structure. It is initiated and led by community residents, with some professional

assistance from a Florida Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Coordinator

and other management agencies. In this case, an employee of the US Forest Service who

is also a resident of Wakulla County helped initiate the designation of the Apalachee

Savannah's Scenic Highway on federal land in Liberty County in1998. Soon after, there

were discussions among FDOT, Forest Service personnel, and community residents to

extend the scenic highway into adjoining counties.

The designation process formally began with several community meetings located

in the small towns of Wakulla County. During these initial forums, the byway was

introduced and described by consultants (also Wakulla residents), tourism leaders and a

representative from the USFS, while residents responded with questions and concerns.









Participants were invited to become more involved as a part of the Scenic Byway

Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG). The CAG met for a planning meeting in January and

drafted a Letter of Intent initiating scenic highway designation. The participants who

attended this CAG meeting are the source of data for this research project.

Research Objectives and Hypotheses

This research sought to gather information that could be applied to the FSHP and to

further understand the dynamics of the participatory structure of the designation process.

Objectives

1. Which principles of a public involvement process are most important and least
important to participants?

2. Do the participants of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process represent
the surrounding community?

3. Is there a relationship between perceived collective efficacy of CAG members and
the principles and characteristics of participation?

Hypotheses

1. Participants will place higher importance on power to influence process and
outcomes over other principles.

2. The participants of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process do not
represent the demographics of the surrounding community.

3. There is no relationship between the certain principles and characteristics of
participation and participants' level of collective efficacy.

Rationale For Study

Several dimensions of participation are used in this study to evaluate participatory

decision-making in the Florida Scenic Highways Program: principles of public

participation, socio-demographic representation, and collective efficacy. The justification

of this study is to further the understanding of normative aspects of participation in

community planning and environmental decision-making from the perspective of









participants. Doing so will further assist our understanding of participants' attitudes

toward the structure of the process.

The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) begins with a premise that members

of the community should be involved in byway planning. However, do all cross-sections

of the community actually participate, or does the process include only elites? Examining

this case can determine whether the participants involved in scenic highway planning are

representative of the community. What are participants' attitudes toward the structural

principles that govern the participation process? The information obtained from this study

can assist the FDOT and communities interested in scenic highway designation. By

gathering information on participants' attitudes toward the BBSB process a better

discourse can be developed that will improve the structure of the participation and the

collective efficacy of individuals.

Specifically, this research seeks to develop implications that can be used to

improve the effectiveness of the FSHP in gaining community support for designation,

suggest techniques that can be used to improve the structure of the process, and the

ability of participants to contribute to the decision-making. These implications can be

used to strengthen the relationship of the scenic highways coordinators with

communities, and refine the FSHP manual to better guide the CAG through the

designation process.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Citizen participation occurs in many forms to engage individuals in decision-

making. These can be very informal community discussions or structured government

processes with specific stated goals. In either case, a variety of political processes are

exhibited that are common to both. This review of literature will provide the basis for

current public participation theory. It will further investigate studies concerning the

structural characteristics of the process, and the level of collective efficacy of participants

involved in decision-making.

Historical Public Participation

After the American and French Revolutions, ordinary male citizens began to be

integrated into the political system, although the majority of rights were vested in the

hands of the wealthy. Democratic reforms in the 19th century were introduced into most

European nations in the form of bills of rights, division of power, equal access to voting

privileges, and permission of parties and labor unions to organize. Public participation

has been a major focus of debate in the United States and Europe since the turn of the

19th century.

As in other Western countries, the U.S. recognized the need for government policy

to be publicly accountable to protect individuals from the infringes of government

(Webler 1995). Political protests and social movements have existed since the country's

foundation in order to express the displeasure of the powerless. As government policy

continued to develop, institutionalization of public participation continued to become









more widespread in government agencies. For instance, the Administrative Procedures

Act of 1944 mandated how agencies were to conduct themselves, although it did not give

specifics of how participation was to be practiced (Daneke et al. 1983). During Johnson's

Great Society Era of the 1950's and 1960's, legislation evolved with the Revised Housing

Act of 1954 and later the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Both of these laws sought

"maximum feasible participation" in community development (Moynihan 1969). The

policies that most profoundly drive public participation today are the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The

assumptions behind the laws of the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's was that participation

would help improve conditions for citizens. Another assumption could be that

government agencies were also interested in getting credibility, curbing protest of

government action, or getting public approval for government behavior.

Instead of promoting participation to protect individual interests in decision-

making, some policy makers suggested that public participation was essential for good

governance. This view was echoed centuries earlier under the assumption that in order for

democracy to be effective, citizens must have legitimate power to influence how they are

governed (Mill 1873; Rousseau 1968[1762]). However, in contrast to the ethical and

ideal rationale for participation, today it has been suggested that citizen participation has

become more of a watchdog activity than a means to free citizens from poverty,

exploitation, and injustice (Webler 1995). Demand for public involvement has increased

as trust and confidence in government and other major institutions has eroded (Berman

1997; Hadden 1991; Kasperson 1994). As a result of these views, more interactive

participatory forms are developing because of increased transparency in government









decision-making, more available information, multilateral processes, and the popularity

of stakeholder involvement processes (Yosie and Herbst 1998).

Briefly exploring the history of public participation in western society and

specifically in the United States provides a context to examine theories that attempt to

justify and explain political behavior. Participatory and representative democracy, two

dominant theories today, are used to explain the behavior of contemporary public

participation. This next section will look at them briefly, outlining the arguments for

promoting and limiting citizen involvement in decision-making.

Participatory Democracy Theory

It is impossible to discuss public participation without introducing participatory

democracy theory. Participatory democracy values individual participation in decision-

making and promotes that it is necessary for government legitimacy (Thomas 1990).

This ethical-normative argument asserts that public participation should attempt to bring

in members of the general public and operate a public involvement process that gives

them opportunity to influence decision-making. Participatory decision-making, where the

residents of the surrounding community are involved in planning processes, is based on

this theory.

Public participation is central to two of participatory democracy's foundational

tenets, popular sovereignty and political equality (Rosenbaum 1978). It is generally

accepted that democracy is the consent among people who establish sovereignty based on

their popular and mutual agreement. Sherry Arnstein's (1969) "ladder of participation"

advanced the normative argument that participation is better when it gives citizens the

power to influence the manner in which they are governed. Arnstein's hierarchy is a

widely cited work that offers a seven-step continuum of participation ranging from









complete agency control to complete citizen control. The lower rungs of the ladder

describe token participation only used to legitimize already formed agency decisions.

Progressing up the ladder describes increasing measures of citizen involvement to the

point of complete control over planning, policy-making, and decision-making. The

continuum helps to identify processes that may be truly participatory or more superficial

than agencies may think they are (Arnstein 1969).

The legitimacy and functioning of democratic governments are based on their

ability to make decisions based on the needs of the governed and by how much the public

is involved in reaching those decisions (Barach 1967:3). The French philosopher

Rousseau argues that a sovereignty is composed of all citizens who provide input through

public participation to develop mutual and legitimate objectives. Only through the

interaction of citizens can the general will of the populous emerge (Rousseau 1968:

1762).

Participatory democracy theorists are not only concerned with the establishment of

popular sovereignty. They argue that democracy must also develop capable and socially

responsible citizens able to participate effectively in affairs (Barach 1967:3). Further,

citizens' moral and intellectual development occurs through involvement in political

affairs (Mill 1873; Laird 1993; Rousseau 1968:1762). In essence, people learn democracy

by participating in its mechanics. That participation then further enhances democracy

(DeSario and Langton 1987; Fiorino 1989; Lynn 1990; Rosenbaum 1978; Shrader-

Frechette 1990).

Based on the assumptions of participatory democracy, several theoretical attempts

have been made to find principles that guide the meaningful integration of citizens into









public decision-making (Romanillos-Palerm 1998; Webler 1995). These are based on the

work on Habermas' theory of communicative action in which he describes an ideal

discourse. This discourse is described in four parts: (1) every interested person should

have an opportunity to participate in the discourse; (2) all participants can put forth

objective, normative and subject claims; (3) all participants can challenge the validity of

claims presented by others; (4) all participants can have a say in defining discourse

closure. Webler (1995) proposes a normative theory of public participation that defines

specific conditions for Habermas' ideal discourse in the context of environmental

decision-making using two meta-principles: 1) fairness and 2) competence. Fairness

refers to the opportunity for all interested or affected parties to assume a legitimate role in

the decision-making process. Competence refers to the ability of the participants to reach

the best decision possible given the information available. In order for participants to

have the ability to exert their influence, structural principles or norms could be used to

moderate typical power struggles that tend to dominate the process (Palerm 1999). The

well-known political theorist Foucault (1988) argues that power relationships cannot be

eliminated. However, the development of Habermas' theory into practical guiding

principles of public involvement could increase the effectiveness of individual

participation and power mediation by reducing the influence of power.

The basis of participatory democracy theory is that broad cross sections of the

public should be directly involved in public decision-making. Involvement strengthens

the democratic system by developing civic-minded citizens, increasing efficacy, and

theoretically generating a better and more appropriate result. However, some theorists









argue that public involvement in decision-making should be limited. These arguments are

often framed in terms of representative democracy.

Representative Democracy

One contrast to participatory democracy is representative democracy. Although not

in direct opposition, this theory takes a significantly different standpoint. This theory is

functional-analytic, meaning it makes observations of society, and then develop theories

explaining its behavior. Both perspectives assert that citizen participation is necessary for

the stability of the social system, but they differ on the degree of civic involvement that is

possible.

Often referred to as liberal representative democracy or pluralism, elitism argues

that most citizens do not have the time, knowledge, interest or resources to participate in

public decision-making activities (Motte and McClaran 1997). Instead, citizens elect

representatives to influence policy decisions or support interest groups that in turn lobby

on their behalf. This theory challenges the values of "classical democracy" and the

competency of citizens to participate meaningfully (Pateman 1970). Representative

democracy even goes further to imply that too much participation may disrupt the social

system (Burke 1968), is economically inefficient (Rosenbaum 1978), technically

incompetent (Cupps 1977), and incites conflict and further unrest (Huntington 1970).

Elitism supports public participation only when it contributes to the stability of the social

system.

Summary of Theories

The competing theories of participatory democracy and representative democracy

both have strengths and weaknesses. The focus of participatory democracy is the

interests of individuals and asserts that democratic systems are strengthened and defined









by public involvement. However, there are many who critique this theory as being

inefficient and producing conflict. Elitism argues that political elites (interest groups) in

power compete with other political elites to develop policy. This may in fact be a good

approximation of how actual decision-making occurs in the U.S. However, questions

arise about whether this is ideal: can interest groups adequately represent the public's

underlying values (Gaventa 1980; Overdevest 2000; Wilson 1980)? In a study conducted

by Overdevest (2000), she found that participants involved in a participatory national

forest land management process were composed of an elite group of individuals with

different socio-demographics from the surrounding community. Between 50% and 75%

of participants represented formal interest groups. A comparison of the participants and

the general community revealed that those engaged in the planning process accurately

represented the attitudes and values of the general community.

Many participation processes have elements of both theories. From a functional-

analytic perspective, one could make the argument that public involvement takes on both

normative qualities and also has power struggles of elite interests. Because it is suggested

that democracy is the consent between individuals and a governing body, this thesis

argues that improving the ability of the general public to access decision-making is

beneficial to the integrity of democratic systems (Rousseau 1968:1762).

In order to develop a better understanding of how to enhance that ability, two

aspects of participation will be examined: 1) the structural principles of participation

processes, 2) and the level of collective efficacy of participants. These elements can help

to determine what principles of public participation are most important to participants and

the relationship between collective efficacy and their attitudes toward the principles.









Success In Public Participation

Evaluating success in public involvement is often considered in terms of both

process and outcomes. Several studies show a clear preference for evaluating

participatory mechanisms based on both criteria (Bingham 1986). Yosie and Herbst

(1998) interviewed 37 individuals experienced in participatory processes and concluded

that there is a need for both outcome and process evaluative measures. Some authors

have proposed evaluative measures based on democratic theory and social justice (Syme

and Sadler 1994; Webler 1995). However, it is also suggested that success is context

specific and definitions may be relative and not universal.

Defining successful outcomes has been the focus of several studies (Chess and

Purcel 1999; Lynn and Busenberg 1995; Moore 1996; Schweitzer et al. 1996). One of the

overlying themes of success is the degree of access participants have to information

(Ashford and Rest 1999; Syme and Sadler 1994). Also important to participants were

their ability to influence the decisions made, fairness of the process, establishing

continuing relationships, creating more open lines of communication (Bingham 1986),

getting issues on the agenda, and comprehensive community involvement (Moore 1996).

There seems to be no evaluation of which characteristics of success are most important to

participants, and Bingham and Moore seem to be relatively unique in their approach of

defining success in the voice of the participants.

Tuler and Webler (1999) continued this investigation by identifying important

structural principles described by participants of a participatory process. These principles

correspond to several of the components of success researchers have identified and will

be described in the next section.









Principles of Public Participation

The theory of participatory democracy asserts that members of the public should be

involved in decision-making. Based on this premise, policy-makers should look for ways

to involve individuals. Process guidelines help to effectively engage people in discourse

and govern how the public is involved in decision-making. Institutions play a role in

establishing norms, and Webler (1995) argues that citizen participation has become

contentious because there is no formal mechanism for the establishment of evaluative

norms.

Theorists and practitioners have attempted to define good process attributes of

public involvement from observation and theory (Bingham 1986; Laird 1993; Palerm

1998; Thomas 1990; Webler 1995). However, there is no consensus on which principles

should make up that process (Tuler and Webler 1999). Very little input has been received

from participants to determine which principles are important or effective from their

perspective. While there is some literature on how participants define successful

outcomes of public participation (Moore 1996), Tuler and Webler (1999) claim to be the

first to define good process components from the voice of the participants. Others have

corroborated these principles elsewhere in theory of process norms (Palerm 1998).

Defining participants' attitudes toward decision-making processes can benefit public

participation by identifying what aspects are most valued.

Using grounded theory, a qualitative technique where important concepts emerge

from data analysis, Tuler and Webler (1999) identified seven concepts as public

involvement principles during a land management planning process in Maine. Each

principle describes a continuum where having less is seen as detrimental to the process

and increasing it is seen as beneficial.









Table 1. Principles of Public Participation (Tuler and Webler 1999).
* Access to the process,
Physically getting people to the meeting and involved in deliberative settings.
* Power to influence process and outcomes,
Includes consensus, distribution of power, and getting issues on an agenda
* Access to information,

Information on the issues being discussed flowing from the participants and
the organizers, coming from the expert and especially from the lay
community.
* Structural characteristics to promote constructive interactions,

Physical structure of the meeting place that contributes to the ability of
individuals to be seen and heard when providing input.
* Facilitation of constructive personal behaviors,
Respectful behaviors that give every person's view equal credence.
* Adequate analysis,
Adequate time is given for information to be assimilated and verified.
* Enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes.

Trust is formed during the process and relationships developed that produce
the desire for future collaboration.


The results are based on 49 individual interviews. The principles that emerged

provide examples of process components that affect the quality of public involvement.

The principles are effective in public participation research because they are derived from

the participants themselves, allow a starting point to evaluate the public perceptions of

participatory community planning, and can be used by organizers to enhance

participation opportunities for individuals. Webler et al. (2001) evaluated these principles

using q-sort analysis, a qualitative technique where participants group statements that

relate to one another and then place those categories into a hierarchy. His results

indicated that participants representing interest groups place more importance on









characteristics related to issues of power that gave their group more influence in the

process. Individuals representing only personal interests were more concerned with

consensus and having a more accessible process that produced better democratic

participation.

Evaluating the principles in terms of their relative importance to each other and

their relation to socio-demographic characteristics of participants has not been conducted.

Researchers suggest this should a next step in public participation research (Tuler and

Webler 1999). This can help determine weaknesses and strengths in public participation

methodology. If trends can be seen in certain groups placing more importance on specific

principles, this can aid managers of public meetings in developing and using better

techniques to involve those groups.

Collective Efficacy

The structure of the process may also affect the efficacy of participants to achieve

or be successful in reaching their desired goals relating to the discourse and outcomes.

Albert Bandura's seminal works on the subjects of personal and collective efficacy

(1986, 1993) are the cornerstones of many modem studies on the subjects. Researchers

have explored the relationship of collective efficacy on teacher performance in schools

(Goddard and Goddard 2001) and sports teams (Kozub and McDonnell 2000) to

neighborhood crime levels (Sampson et al. 1997). Some research suggests that collective

efficacy in community groups is influenced by the structures that promote interaction and

power distribution within them (Carroll and Reese 2003). These concepts are discussed in

public participation literature in terms of legitimacy and power mediation (Amstein 1969;

Barach 1967:3; Palerm 1999), but do not appear to be linked directly to collective

efficacy.









The widely used political efficacy scale designed by Campell et al. (1954) provides

one linkage between national participation processes and efficacy. Their work has been

expounded upon but still retains original scale items dealing with more formal voting

type participation mechanisms. Exploring the relationship between collective efficacy

and the principles of public participation may help us understand how the structure of

participatory processes affects the perceived ability of a group to accomplish their goals.

Summary

Citizen participation is a topic that generates considerable debate in the public

arena. Although most democratic societies support some form of participation, it is how

to attract the appropriate degree and quality of participation over which debates ensue. It

is inevitable that the active and elite citizens will continue to promote their involvement

in public decision-making, and the way in which the public is engaged will be a focal

point for debate. Because of the similarities between national forest planning (Overdevest

2000) and scenic highway designation, this study hypothesizes that the characteristics of

the CAG participants will be different than those of the general population of Wakulla

County, Florida.

Improving the participation of community members in scenic highway designation

is a precursor to enhancing the discourse between decision-makers and participants. This

is a promising avenue of research that can guide public involvement into more effective

processes and outcomes that are mutually beneficial and satisfying to those involved.

Many authors have laid a substantial amount of groundwork to explain and support

various views of how democratic systems should and do operate. Some argue that for

system stability public participation should be used as much as possible. Others conclude

that participation is only practical for a select group, and the public should be involved









only so far as it is reasonable, efficient, and helpful to the goals of the policy makers. If

average citizens are to be involved in any way, there must be more information on how

they engage what are their attitudes toward that discourse. Normative theories look for

ways to include citizens in the discourse effectively and meaningfully. Principles that can

guide citizen involvement in public participation can be explored in the context of

attitudes and intentions.

As noted by other researchers, there appears to be little literature on identifying

principles from the voice of the participants. Further, what principles are more important

to participants has been suggested as a next step in the process of exploring public

participation theory. Based on Webler's (2001) and Overdevest's (2000) findings, this

thesis assumes that participants will favor power over other principles because they are

composed of an elite group of community residents. This research will examine Corridor

Advocacy Group members' attitudes toward the principles of participation by identifying

which ones are most important to participants.

Although collective efficacy has not dealt directly with the influence of structural

elements of participation, it does suggest that an individual's belief in the ability if the

group to accomplish goals has an effect on collective efficacy. This can be further related

to the principles and characteristics of power described by Tuler and Webler. This thesis

will explore the relationship between the principles and characteristics of public

participation and CAG members' perception of collective efficacy.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methods used in this study.

It will explain how the population was identified, the survey instrument was developed,

and the data analyzed. This research project was designed to evaluate the designation

process of the Big Bend Scenic Byway (BBSB) by measuring the attitudes of participants

involved in the planning process towards the principles of the process and the collective

efficacy of the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG).

Study Area

Wakulla County is located in the Florida Panhandle, south of the state capital of

Tallahassee. Several towns and cities in Wakulla County served as the focus of this

research. Town meetings presenting the BBSB plan to communities occurred in October

through December of 2001 in the communities of Panacea Park, Ochlocknee Bay,

Wakulla Springs, and Sopchoppy (Figure 2). The CAG meeting, at which the first formal

planning process occurred, was held in Crawfordville, Florida in late January 2002.

Study Population

The BBSB designation process has involved members of communities in Wakulla

County, Florida who attended at least one of four scenic byway meetings. These

participants were then invited to become members of the Corridor Advocacy Group

(CAG). Of the residents who attended the meetings, 77 agreed to become members of the

CAG. The CAG is composed of residents involved in the designation of the BBSB as

well as community leaders, speakers, and organizers of the designation process.















F 13
..

LIBERT.I'Y T













Figure 2. Wakulla County, Florida

Sign-in lists at each meeting, gathered by the consultants who arranged the

meeting, recorded information about members of the CAG. Because of the access to

members of the CAG and the small numbers of participants involved, it was possible to

survey the entire population.

Survey Design

The research design was cross-sectional, meaning that the survey was administered

to a group at one specific point in time. The survey included 123 questions pertaining to

scenic highway designation, tourism management, public participation, community

development, and demographics (Appendix A). Of these questions, 44 are the basis for

this research and are grouped into 3 categories.

Category #1 consisted of 19 items measuring members' attitudes toward

characteristics of public involvement in the context of the designation process. These

questions were derived from several supporting studies on public participation principles









(Bingham 1983; Palerm 1998; Laird 1993; Thomas 1990; Tuler and Webler 1999;

Webler 1995). This question used a five point Likert scale to measure how important

each item was to the participant.

Category #3 consisted of 15 items related to the level of collective efficacy of the

CAG. Efficacy questions have been shown to be more effective when they are

specifically written for the situation. The questions were developed from collective

efficacy literature and scored on seven-point Likert scale measuring individual's

perceptions of how able the CAG was in accomplishing certain tasks and goals related to

the planning process (Bandura 1993, Carrol and Reese 2003).

Finally, 10 items measured the socio-demographics of respondents, their level of

participation in community groups, and whether they acted as a representative of any of

those groups at the scenic highway planning meetings.

Pilot Testing

A pilot test of the survey was conducted using 21 University of Florida students

attending an English composition class. Ideally, a pilot study is conducted with a random

sample of the population of interest. Two factors prevented this: (1) the population of

interest was small (n = 77), and (2) surveying another similar population was outside the

realm of possibility. The pilot survey provided the ability to gather participant comments

on question wording and identified preliminary relationships between variables. Using

this information, survey questions were improved for clarity.

Survey Procedures

Numbered questionnaire booklets and cover letters were mailed in July 2002 to 77

participants of the BBSB designation process. The survey booklet was eight-pages long

with return postage printed on the back cover (Appendix A). It was estimated that









participants would take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the survey.

Respondents were asked to fold, staple or tape, and mail the questionnaire back to the

University of Florida when completed. Although the length of the questionnaire may be

prohibitive in some research studies, the population was composed of stakeholders

already involved in the decision-making of the scenic byway. They had an active stake in

the content; therefore, they were more likely to fill out a detailed questionnaire.

The survey instrument was disseminated according to recommendations described by

Dillman (2000) to encourage a higher response rate. This method of survey distribution is

widely used in the social sciences, and is based on a great deal of research. It includes

multiple mailings over a period of five weeks.

Table 2. Data Gathering Schedule
Day 1 University of Florida researchers mailed a postcard letting study participants
about the study and soon-to-be arriving survey packet.
Day 3 The survey was then mailed to CAG members two days after the first post
card. A need to clarify mailing instructions prompted an additional letter to be
sent.
Day 10 One week after mailing the survey, a postcard was sent thanking study
participants for completing the survey and asking those who have not returned
the survey to send it in.
Day 24 Three weeks after the initial survey mailing, researchers mailed additional
surveys to all non-respondents. A cover letter included with the questionnaire
urged participants to respond as quickly as possible.
Day 38 Five weeks after the initial survey mailing researchers administered another
mailing to non-respondents through Priority Mail. This included a third copy
of the questionnaire and a letter urging them to complete the questionnaire and
return it as soon as possible.

Limitations of Study

There are several limitations of this study that should be considered. Even though a

70% response rate is considered high for surveys of this type, 30% of CAG members did

not participate. If these non-respondents felt at all differently about scenic highway









designation and public participation then the results of this research may be skewed.

Several other limitations to this research and their effect on the results are listed below.

* The population size was too small to allow the use of some statistical tests It cannot
support generalizations to other populations, but such generalizations were not
intended from one small case study.

* It was early in the byway designation process. The CAG had one planning meeting
prior to receiving this survey. Participants' attitudes may change as more meetings
take place.

* No records of CAG members' frequency of attendance were gathered. It cannot be
determined if more active participants differed from less active ones.

* A single data technique was used to measure the concepts. Other techniques could
have helped confirm results of survey.

Preparation of Variables

Participant responses collected in the survey were entered into SPSS 10 (Statistical

Program for the Social Sciences 2000). In order to evaluate hypotheses, descriptive

statistics, paired t-tests, and binary logistical regression were used. The analysis method

of each research objective is discussed individually.

Objective One

Which principles of a public involvement process are most important and least
important to participants?

To evaluate research objective one, the nineteen characteristics of public

participation (Table 3) were collapsed into indices (principles) following conceptual

patterns suggested in the literature (Tuler and Webler 1999). Next, scale reliability tests

were performed to determine whether the indices measured the constructs. Scale

reliability measures the repeatability or internal consistency of the variables in the index.

For an index to be reliable, there must be some pattern to participant responses. Overall,

the index is considered to be valid if it has a Cronbach alpha of at least .6. Therefore, the









cut off point used in this study was a = .6. The index "Power to Influence Process and

Outcomes" (POWER) had the lowest alpha at .5339, and is considered an unreliable

measure of one conceptual domain. Because the alpha is a measure of the inter-

correlation of items in the index those items that are weakly correlated lower the alpha.

One item was removed that had a much higher mean than the rest of the items, "Prevent

any one group from having too much influence." However, the alpha of the index did not

increase (.5238). A variety of runs revealed that any item(s) removed from this index

would have lowered the reliability. The weakness of this index indicates that the items

Tuler and Webler (1999) suggested comprised power may measure two or more

dimensions of the construct rather than one. One caveat, however, is that four of the five

items in the index had the lowest means of all the other characteristics of public

participation (Appendix D), meaning that four of the five items in the index were

considered least important to CAG members.

There are several possible explanations that could account for the low reliability of

some of the principles (< .7) in contrast to the literature (Tuler and Webler 1999). The

CAG may also have differing perceptions of these items than the community-planning

group Tuler and Webler (1999) studied. Question wording may also have influenced the

way respondents understood the items therefore rendering the item ambiguous or

negative in meaning.

The means of the principles were used to evaluate their importance in relation to

each other. Although the means of individual items composing the indices may have been

higher than the overall principles itself, the index averages all the items to give the

construct one score (Appendix D).










Table 3. Principles Domains, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha
Principle Characteristics of Public Participation a
Allow participants to influence the way the meeting
is being conducted.
1. Power to influence the Put all concerns on the agenda.
process and outcomes Allow people who are most affected to have the 5339
(POWER) most representation.
Conduct meetings according to consensus.
Prevent any one group from having too much
influence.
2. Structural characteristics to Give participants the opportunity to be heard when
promote constructive making comments. .7144
interaction (STRUCTURE) Foster an atmosphere of open communication.
Give advance notice of meetings.
Conduct meetings at convenient locations.
3. Access to the process Conduct meetings at convenient times. .7691
(ACCESS) Have a diversity of community members
represented at the meetings.
Give adequate time for all participants to discuss
4. Adequate analysis information. 6070
(ANALYSIS) Allow participants to review the information
presented at the meeting.
Gather local knowledge.
Access to information Fully disclose information.
5. Access to information
(IN ) Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn .6643
detailed information about the issues being
discussed.
6. Enabling of social Develop relationships that encourage future
conditions necessary for participation. .6603
future processes (FUTURE) Build trust among participants.


7. Constructive personal
behaviors
(DEVELOPRULES)


Develop Rules About Acceptable Behavior


1 item


Objective Two

Do the participants of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process represent
the surrounding community?

For objective two, a comparison of the socio-demographics of CAG members was

made with the general population of Wakulla County. Descriptive statistics were used to

determine the means and frequencies of all socio-demographic questions. Graphs created

from an Excel database provided the ability to compare both groups visually and









quantitatively. Statistical tests could not be conducted between the populations because

limited information (no data set) was available from the census data.

Objective Three

Is there a relationship between the perceived collective efficacy of CAG
participants and the principles and characteristics of participation?

Objective three evaluated the relationship between collective efficacy and select

principles and characteristics of public participation. This was accomplished in several

steps, using a variety of statistical techniques. First, a collective efficacy index was

created from items listed in question #3 of the survey (Appendix A). Because many items

exhibited correlations with each other, variables for the index were selected that had the

highest correlation (>.798) with four or more other items in the collective efficacy section

of the survey (Appendix C). The alpha was ac=.9683 showing strong reliability within the

index (Table 4). These questions related to the ability of the CAG members to collaborate

effectively, and represent the overall level of collective efficacy. In practice, each item in

an efficacy index is treated as an independent and equally weighted contribution to an

overall efficacy score (Carrol and Reese 2003).

Using the mean as the cutoff point, the index was recorded into a dichotomous

categorical variable indicating high efficacy (1) and low efficacy (0). In order to

transform the ordinal variable collective efficacy into dichotomous form, the calculated

mean of the index (Table 4) was used as a dividing point. All participants with scores

below the mean were coded as perceiving lower collective efficacy. All participants

above the mean had a greater perception of the CAGs collective efficacy. This

transformation allowed the use of logistical regression analysis. The level of efficacy

served as the dependent variable.









Table 4. Collective Efficacy Index, Individual Items, and Reliability Alpha.
Index Collective Efficacy Items a
successfully effect change
stay on task
Collective work collaboratively .9683
.9683
Efficacy give every member an opportunity to contribute
work through difficult impasses
operate according to consensus


Select characteristics and principles of public participation were used as

independent variables. A bivariate correlation matrix (Appendix C) identified variables

that had relationships with the collective efficacy index. They included the items

(FUTURE) "conditions that contribute to future processes", (CONSENSUS) "conduct

meetings according to consensus", and (FUTURE PARTICIPATION) "develop

relationships that encourage future participation". The items relating to agenda setting

(AGENDA) and equal representation (MOST REPRESENTATION) were used based on

their theoretical relationships with the index (Carroll and Reese 2003). Socio-

demographic items were also included as independent variables. These included income,

education, gender, age, and years of residence. Next, four of the ten variables were

recorded in SPSS as dichotomous indicating low (0) or high (1) levels or importance. The

mean of each variable was used as the dividing point. Values below the mean received a

0. Those values above it received a 1. Listed below are the recorded variables.

* Income (level)
Originally 11 categories then simplified into one dichotomous variable
* Conduct meetings according to consensus (individual item)
Originally an ordinal item.
* Education (level).
Originally eight categories then simplified into one dichotomous variable
* Develop relationships that encourage future participation (individual item)
Originally an ordinal item.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the Big Bend Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy

Group Survey and discusses the evidence to support or reject the hypotheses. It is

organized according to research objectives, as follows, and details the statistical methods

used in the analysis of the data.

Objectives

1. Which principles of a public involvement process are most important or least
important to CAG participants?

2. Do the participants of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process represent
the socio-demographics of the surrounding community?

3. Is there a relationship between perceived collective efficacy of CAG members and
the principles and characteristics of participation?

Survey Response Rate

A total of 77 surveys were mailed to Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) members

over the total six-week data collection period. The surveys were returned by a total of 54

participants, two of which indicated they did not want to participate and did not complete

the questionnaire. Including all returned surveys, the total response rate was 70%.

Principles of Participation

The purpose of research objective #1 was to determine how CAG members ranked

the principles of public participation in order of importance. Six principles were

operationalized as 19 individual characteristics of public participation. To evaluate

attitudes toward the 19 items, participants were asked how important each characteristic










was to them in relation to the BBSB designation process on a five-point scale of

importance (Appendix D).

Table 5. Principles and Characteristics of Public Participation (Tuler and Webler 1999)
Principle Characteristics of Public Participation Mean

Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is 3.04
being conducted.
1. Items intended to Put all concerns on the agenda. 3.65
measure "power to
meure power o Allow people who are most affected to have the most
influence the process 2.90
and outcomes representation.
and outcomes
Conduct meetings according to consensus. 3.14
Prevent any one group from having too much influence. 4.14

2. Structural characteristics Give participants the opportunity to be heard when 4.02
to promote constructive making comments.
interaction Foster an atmosphere of open communication. 4.22

Give advance notice of meetings. 4.20
Conduct meetings at convenient locations. 4.02
3. Access to the process Conduct meetings at convenient times. 4.12
Have a diversity of community members represented at 4.24
the meetings.
Give adequate time for all participants to discuss .
information.
4. Adequate analysis
Allow participants to review the information presented at 3.92
the meeting.
Gather local knowledge. 4.10
. Access to information Fully disclose information. 4.29
5. Access to information
Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn
detailed information about the issues being discussed. 3.86

6. Enabling of social Develop relationships that encourage future participation. 3.98
conditions necessary for
future processes Build trust among participants. 4.10
7. Constructive personal
S on r rso Develop Rules About Acceptable Behavior 3.69
behaviors.


Of these items, respondents indicated that the disclosure of information (mean of

4.29), having a diversity of community members represented at the meetings (4.24), and

fostering an atmosphere of open communication (4.22) were the most important









individual characteristics of the scenic byway meetings. Respondents ranked the items

allow people who are most affected to have the most representation (2.90) and allow

participants to influence the way the meeting is being conducted (3.04) as the two lowest

Hypothesis

Participants will place higher importance on power to influence process and
outcomes over other principles.

In order to evaluate if the hypothesis of objective #1 was supported by the results,

the 19 individual characteristics represented were condensed into the seven conceptual

domains (indices) representing each of the seven principles. Because the one index

described by Tuler and Webler was an unreliable measure of the construct "Power to

influence process and outcomes" (due to low alpha), the individual item means

comprising this construct were compared with the rest of the principles (Table 5).

Table 6. Means of the Principles and Power Items
Principle Mean
Access to the Process (PROCESS) 4.15

Prevent any one group from having too much influence. 4.14
(Power Item)
Structural Characteristics
Promoting Constructive 4.12
Interactions (STRUCTURE)

Access to Information (ACCESS) 4.09

Conditions that Contribute to 4.04
Future Processes (FUTURE)
Adequate Information 3.99
Analysis (INFO)
Constructive Personal Behaviors (DEVELOP RULES) 3.69
Put all concerns on the agenda. (Power Item) 3.65
Conduct meetings according to consensus. (Power Item) 3.14
Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being 3.04
conducted. (Power Item)
Allow people who are most affected to have the most 2
2.90representation. (Power Item)
representation. (Power Item)









Six principles and four items were evaluated on a scale of importance. All were

shown to have at least some importance to CAG members. However, the results indicate

that CAG members placed most importance on access to the designation process

(principle 3: "access to the process"). This variable denotes designing a meeting time and

location with advanced notice as well as having a diversity of people present. Therefore

the hypothesis is not supported.

Four of the five characteristics Tuler and Webler (1999) said were part of the

construct of power were considered the least important to CAG members (Table 6). Past

research has found that types of participants value certain characteristics above others

(Webler et al. 2001). Participants representing interest groups have been shown to place

value on limiting wide participation and minimizing consensus. Individuals representing

only themselves valued consensus, better access for wide spread community involvement,

and quality interaction (Webler et al. 2001). CAG members placed importance on these

latter characteristics (Table 5) indicating their similarity to individuals who represented

only themselves valued (Webler et al. 2001). However, Overdevest (2000) suggested that

participants with more elite socio-demographics might be more associated with special

interest groups, whom Webler suggested are more concerned with power.

These findings suggest three things: 1) that participants place more importance with

getting community members to the meeting than about characteristics of power, 2) CAG

members may have been less likely to support the values or have been representatives of

interest groups, (3) members may be involved for other reasons.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of CAG Members

The analysis of research objective #2 compared the socio-demographics of the

Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) sample (N = 54) with that of the 2000 Census data for










Wakulla County (N = 22,863). Using this information, a descriptive comparison revealed

the degree to which CAG members represented the socio-demographics of the general

population of Wakulla County. Since statistical tests between the two groups could not be

conducted, a descriptive comparison shows that members of the Corridor Advocacy

Group (CAG) had several differences in socio-demographics compared to the general

population of Wakulla County residents. These differences will be highlighted below.

Hypothesis

The participants of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process do not
represent the demographics of the surrounding community

The majority of study respondents were female (58%). In comparison, the

percentage of females in Wakulla County was fewer (48%) than males (52%). CAG

participants represented an older population compared to Wakulla residents. CAG

members varied in age from 33 to over 70 years with over half (56%) of the respondents

falling between 41 and 60 years (Figure 3). Only 4% of the study participants were under

40 years of age, with almost 30% being over the age of 60. In comparison 51% of the

population of Wakulla were between 34 and 54 years old, with 20% being over 65 years

of age.

33% 31%
28%
a 25%
S1 MCAG Participants
18% 18%
S_ 15% OWakulla Residents
W 10%
6% 4%


19 and 34 or 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
younger younger
Ages of Respondents



Figure 3. CAG Participants (n=52) and Wakulla County Residents (n=22,863) Age
Dispersion










Study participants were almost entirely of Caucasian ethnicity (93%, Figure 4),

which is slightly higher than the population of Wakulla County overall (86%). Two

Americans Indian/ Alaskan Natives represented all of the ethnic diversity; 5% of CAG

participants, but in such small samples, the adding or subtracting a few individuals can

dramatically change the proportions. The general Wakulla population is composed of

12% African American and 2% Hispanic or Latino. However, neither Hispanics/ Latinos

nor African Americans were represented in the CAG.

93%
86%
CAG
4- Participants
Co
O D Wakulla
Residents

12%
S1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%

Am Indian / Asian or African Latino or Caucasian other
Alaskan Pacific American Hispanic
Native Islander
Race



Figure 4. Ethnicity of CAG Participants (n=50) and Wakulla County Residents
(n=22,863)

CAG members typically had advanced education with 60% or more having college

degrees (Figure 5). Graduate degrees made up a large portion of the sample (31%), and

less than 4% did not have a high school degree. Comparatively, Wakulla's overall

population had a much higher proportion of people who completed their high-school

degree but did not go to college (35%), fewer college graduates (10%) and very few

graduate degrees (6%). Many residents (15%) did not have a high school degree.











graduate degree

some graduate
school or beyond

college graduate


some college

trade/ technical/
vocational training

highschool grad or
GED

some high school


6%31
31


210%
22%


122%


22%


OWakulla Residents


ECAG Members


I 35%


115%
N 2%


Percentage of Respondents



Figure 5. Level Of Education of CAG Members (n=51) and Wakulla County Residents
(n=22,863)

Over 25% of CAG participants' had incomes of $100,000 or more. The average

income of participants was between $60,000 and $69,999. The median household income

of Wakulla is significantly lower ($45,000) than CAG participants with 50% of the

population having incomes between $15,000 and $49,999 and 28% between $50,000 and

$99,999. Comparatively, 33% of CAG members' had of incomes between $20,000 and

$49,999 with 39% between $50,000 and $99,999. The largest difference between CAG

members and overall Wakulla County comes from the category of $100,000 or more

(25% vs. 8% respectively).












25%
4-
19%








<10,000 10,000- 20,000- 30,000- 40,000- 50,000- 60,000- 70,000- 80,000- 90,000- 100,000
19,999 29,999 39,999 49,999 59,999 69,999 79,999 89,999 99,999 or more
Level of Income



Figure 6. Annual Income of CAG Participants (n=48)



20%
15%
o 10%








Q88% 8%
2% 0% 1i i1i 2%













<10,000 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 35,000- 50,000- 70,000- 80,000- 90,000- 100,000
19,999 29,999 39,999 34,999 59,999 69,999 79,999 89,999 99,999 ormore
Level of Income



Figure 7. Annual Income of Wakulla County Residents (n=48)22,863)
20%
17% 18%




8m8% 8%
n6%




<10,000 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 35,000- 50,000- 75,000- 100,000 or
14,999 24,999 34,999 49,999 74,999 99,999 more
Income



Figure 7. Annual Income of Wakulla County Residents (n=22,863)

The results of the descriptive analysis of socio-demographics reveal that CAG

members overall were different on several respects from the general population of

surrounding community. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. CAG

members were older, had more education, and had larger annual incomes. No members of

the CAG were Hispanics/ Latinos or African Americans possibly because many do not









occupy the highly educated and wealthy class that the members of the CAG typically

characterized. This is not surprising since other studies have found similar results

(Overdevest 2000). This indicates that elites from the community may have been

involved. Overdevest (2000) found that even though interest groups and participants with

very different socio-demographics dominated the process, they still approximated the

values of the surrounding community fairly well. Although CAG members had

substantial differences in ethnicity, income, education, and age compared to residents of

Wakulla County in general, this does not necessarily mean misrepresentation of the

community's values occurred. To know if this is the case, the attitudes and values of both

the surrounding community and CAG members would have to be examined.

Collective Efficacy and Principles

The level of group efficacy can provide a measure of how effective participants

believe the CAG was or will be in accomplishing certain goals and tasks related to the

designation process. This section evaluated the individual CAG member's perspectives

on the group dynamics of the CAG meeting by asking participants to rank fifteen items

on a seven-point scale (i.e., 1=Not At All, 7=A Great Deal, Appendix E). Items received

means between 5 (moderately effective) and 6 (great deal of effect). Overall, respondents

felt the CAG was moderately to a great deal able to come to the meeting ready to work

(mean of 5.81), and had the skills to achieve the designation goal (5.74). The lowest

ranked items, but still having a mean over 5, were the ability of the group to access

information about the community's needs (5.16) and give equal consideration of all

issues presented (5.19).

Research question #3 evaluated if there was a relationship between CAG

member's efficacy and the principles and characteristics of public participation (Tables 8,









9) using a logistical regression. This analysis used several independent variables to

construct a model used to estimate probabilities (predict) of whether or not respondents

would choose high or low efficacy then compare those predictions with the participants

actually level of collective efficacy. The higher the percentage of correct predictions by

the model, the more powerful it is.

As discussed earlier in the methods chapter, the collective efficacy index

composed select items with strong correlations (Table 4, pg. 29). Using the mean as the

cutoff point, the index was recorded into a dichotomous categorical variable indicating

high efficacy (1) and low efficacy (0). Several of the independent variables were also

transformed to improve the model (pg. 29)

Table 7. Regression equation, Dependent Variable, and Independent Variables
Dependent Variable Independent Variables
y= xl +x2 +x3 +x4 +x5 +x6 +x7 +x8 +x9 +xl1
Age + Gender + Income + Education +
Collective Efficacy Index Length of residency + Principle 4 (future
process) + Consensus + Future
Participation + Agenda + Most
representation


A regression equation was developed and the variables inserted into a SPSS

logistical model (Table 7). The model has several output features that indicate the

direction of the relationship of the independent variables and their significance. The

coefficient explains the slope or direction of the relationship between the independent and

dependent variable. The aggregated elasticity of variables indicate how much a 1%

percentage change in a continuous independent variable causes an increase in the

probability of the dependent variable changing from 0 to 1 (lower to higher efficacy) or 1

to zero (depending on sign of coefficient). However, in the case of dichotomous









independent variables, there can be no increase in the mean except for a change from one

value to another (poor to rich, young to old, etc.). Therefore, the coefficients can only be

interpreted as indicating the direction of the relationship and not the magnitude of it.

Hypothesis

There is no relationship between certain principles and characteristics of
participation and participants' level of collective efficacy.

Several characteristics of public participation had some effect on CAG members'

level of collective efficacy. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Each variable and

its interpretation will be discussed in the following section. Discussion will focus on

those variables that were significant.

One of the model's primary features is the Nagelkerke R Square. It is a test based

on a continuous scale from 0 to 1 comparable to the r-squared value found in linear

regression analysis used to evaluate how strong the association between the dependent

and independent variables is. The overall ability of the model was quite good (.538). The

percentage of correct predictions (74%) made by the model shows that the model had a

strong ability to predict the dependent variable (Table 8). This means that the model was

able to correctly predict the level of collective efficacy of 74% of cases.









Table 8. Coefficient, Standard Error, Significance, and Aggregated Elasticity
Aggregated
Variable Coefficient Significance Elasticity
Elasticity
Consensus** 3.820 .039 1.087
Education* -3.446 .071 -1.383
Gender* -2.982 .072 -1.071
Most Representation* .888 .075 .521
Agenda .857 .117 .709
Years of Residence .027 .512 .090
Income .729 .523 2.073
Age .034 .599 .438
Future Process -.433 .642 .395
Future Participation .232 .883 .0891
Nagelkerke R Square .538
Correct Predictions 74%
n=38
significant at p < .05
**significant at p < .1

The coefficient of the dichotomous variable "Consensus" was positive (3.820),

indicating that the more importance a participant placed on conducting meetings

according to consensus their collective efficacy tended to be higher. Consensus denotes

that individual CAG members perceive the group must reach a group decision. Because

collective efficacy is a measure of how well a group is able to accomplish tasks and

goals, it is logical that consensus would be positively associated with it. The results

suggest that as participants' faith in the use of consensus increases, the level of perceived

collective efficacy and the functioning of the group would also increase. Similarly, other

studies have noted that the efficacy of schoolteachers have been shown to be positively

influenced by their ability to work together to achieve goals (Bandura 1997, Carrol and

Reese 2003). Consensus was considered important by CAG members, although less so

when compared to all variables. The logit model does not take into account the degree of









importance of the variable, but merely indicates the presence of a relationship and its

direction.

The ordinal variable "Most Representation" (Participants who are most affected

should have the most representation) also had a positive relationship with the index

indicating that the greater its importance the higher the level of collective efficacy. For

every 1% increase in the importance of "Most Representation", the probability of a

participants' collective efficacy increasing would increase .52%. The variable "allow

people who are most affected to have the most representation" indicates power

redistribution in favor of those who may incur the greatest impacts associated with the

scenic byway. Although this variable was ranked as somewhat important to CAG

members, it represents the least important variable when compared to all others.

However, the same holds true for this variable as consensus. The model indicates a

relationship and direction but does not consider the importance of the variable. However,

this may suggest that in the early stages of the planning process participants may feel that

everyone has an equal stake in the decision-making and that favoring one groups) above

others would be unfair. As more specific planning and management strategies are

developed participants' views may change because of their perceptions in how they are

affected by those plans.

The dichotomous socio-demographic variables gender and education both exhibited

significant differences indicating both had relationships with collective efficacy. Gender

was coded as dichotomous variable with a '1' indicating male, a '2' indicating female.

Based on coding and the sign of the coefficient being negative (-2.982), female CAG

members tended to have a lower level of perceived efficacy and male respondents a









higher level. There were slightly more female participants (58%) compared to males.

CAG members were composed of an older population, and the female to male ratio of

older populations tend to have larger proportions of women. This may suggest that even

though the process included more females, males may have dominated the discussions.

Another possibility is that female participants may perceive the concept of collective

efficacy in a different way. Female CAG members could have a more stringent

evaluation of the concept that lowered their overall perception of the efficacy of the

group.

Education had a negative relationship with the collective efficacy index (-1.38).

Members with higher education were coded as a '2'. Members with lower education were

coded as a '1'. The direction of the coefficient was negative (-3.446) indicating that CAG

participants who had a lower education tended to have a higher level of perceived

collective efficacy, and members with higher education tended to have a lower level.

More educated individuals may perceive the CAG as less effective because of prior

experiences with community planning forums and may have more skepticism of them

general.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research found differences in the importance members of the

CAG placed on principles and characteristics of public participation. Although

differences were not great between these items and all characteristics were found to be at

least somewhat important to the participants, the variables' relative importance to each

other revealed that some principles were more and less favored than others.

The frequency comparison revealed that CAG members were an elite group of

individuals with different socio-demographic characteristics from the general population






45


of Wakulla County. However, this does not mean that their attitudes misrepresent those

of the surrounding community.














CHAPTER 5
PLANNING IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Research would do little good if it did not aim to improve society. Therefore, it is

important that the results and discussion of this study be applied to the Big Bend Scenic

Byway designation process. Because scenic highway designation is led by community

members and guided by the Florida Department of Transportation, knowing more about

the participant attitudes toward the process can help design more effective strategies for

participant involvement.

Byway designation is intended to be a participatory effort led by local community

residents (FSHP 1993). Because the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) is the primary

entity responsible for scenic highway designation, it is important for the Florida

Department of Transportation (FDOT) to have a thorough understanding of this group's

attitudes toward the process. Survey results indicate participants feel it is important to

have an accessible meeting process composed of a diverse representation of the

community. FDOT should continue to stress the participatory-nature of the process

because local involvement in byway planning and management is very important to CAG

members. This is also an overarching principle in scenic highway planning, and any

alterations to make the process more structured should strongly consider how this affects

local community control.

The Florida Scenic Highways Program manual includes an outline for a

Community Participation Program (CPP) for the designation process. The purpose of the

CPP is to describe an approach to provide information as well as gather public input for a









proposed corridor (FSHP 1993). Based on participant attitudes, planning implications

will be recommended that build upon FSHPM by adding more specific techniques for

FDOT scenic highway coordinators to increase the effectiveness of the CPP.

Expand Role of Scenic Highways Coordinator

The main FDOT representative who provides assistance to communities in the Big

Bend region of Florida interested in scenic highway designation is the Florida FDOT

District 3 Environmental Specialist. The environmental specialist serves as the scenic

highways coordinator of that area and can be influential in the tone of the participation,

which may affect the success of the CAG and ultimately the scenic highway. Although

the survey did not directly ask participants about the coordinator, he or she can influence

many of the items CAG members found important. For instance, participants found the

disclosure of information to be of highest importance followed closely by diverse

participants and having open communication.

Currently, 15% of the FDOT environmental specialist's time is allocated toward

working with communities to designate scenic highways. It is not only important that the

specialist has the resources needed for assisting communities but also has the skills

needed to work collaboratively with communities interested in designation. At some

points in the process, 15% of the environmental specialist's job is likely adequate, but

when a region begins the designation process, this role might need to be expanded. The

following recommendations are designed for FDOT environmental specialists serving as

scenic highway coordinators to help improve their resources and advising capabilities

with communities.









Increase Diversity

Participants indicated that having access to the designation process was the most

important principle of public participation. CAG members also indicated that having a

diversity of community members represented in the in the planning of the byway was

important, yet data show the CAG is not as diverse as the county. Increasing the access to

the planning process can potentially add to the diversity of participants involved in

designation. This could be accomplished by developing additional strategies targeting the

promotion of the byway to underrepresented groups in the community. Clearly, the

strategies used were not enough to attract a diverse CAG. It may help for the scenic

highways coordinator to facilitate the partnerships of CAGs with local chambers of

commerce, business and civic organizations in order to gain support for advertising to the

community about the scenic highway meetings and membership in the CAG. As these

results show, access and diverse representation is an important aspect of public

participation and was not sufficient.

Disclose Information

Participants believed the most important characteristic of the scenic byway

meetings was having a full disclosure of information. This can potentially increase

transparency and the trust of participants in the process. Scenic highway coordinators can

provide information to CAGs by regularly attending meetings and answering all

questions posed by participants. Further, coordinators can give members opportunities to

provide feedback at the end of the meeting. Members can be given feedback forms to

comment on management plans, the organization of the meetings, as well as make open-

ended suggestions. Also, as communities develop CAGs, the coordinator could work with









select CAG members to develop brochures and websites that provide key information

specific to that region's involvement in scenic highway designation.

The current Scenic Highways Program Manual provides a great deal of information

to the CAG about the designation process. Because of the amount of detail in the manual,

most CAG members may not be willing to wade through the material. The current

website on scenic highway designation also does not allow users to easily access

information on the process. FDOT can develop workshops, and a website and handbook

that gives brief pertinent information on the designation process, the role of the CAG, and

the characteristics of the scenic highway. This would enable all CAG members, local

businesses, and community residents to better access important information without

having to navigate through the program manual. Information that could be addressed in

the handbook and website should include material pertinent to the principles and

characteristics members valued highly; access to the process and disclosure of

information.

* purposes) of the byway,
* the purpose of the public involvement process,
* how to be involved in the planning process,
* how individuals and groups can request more information,
* status of designation efforts

Structure Meetings

A legitimate and fair public involvement process requires that participants are able

to affect the structure of the discourse and outcomes of decision-making. Because

collective efficacy was influenced by participants' attitudes toward their ability to operate

according to consensus, representation, gender, and education, scenic highway

coordinators should design strategies to manage for these accordingly. Collective efficacy









is a function of how well the group perceives they can accomplish certain goals and tasks

related to the planning process. This includes working together and each member doing

his or her part to achieve the goal of designation. Since scenic highway designation is

inherently a participatory process, it is up to the community members to design the

structure of the CAG meetings. Scenic highway coordinators might be able to offer

planning strategies to increase collective efficacy in the CAG by providing more

elements of a participatory process. The FSHPM suggests that byway meetings should

have an agenda and a meeting officiant; however, more specific guidance would help

produce a more effective meeting process. Suggested techniques based on the principles

and characteristics of public participation include:

* Promoting constructive interaction (Principle #3)

la) CAGs could develop ground rules including how the process and final
decisions will be made as well as how to insure that all perspectives are
considered.

lb) Ask participants to provide their perceived potential positive and negative
impacts of the scenic byway at the opening of community information sessions.

* Item relating to power. Make efforts to ensure that individual participants or
groups of individuals (in relation to gender as well) do not dominate the process or
discussion

* Develop rules about acceptable behavior (Principle #7). Leaders should decide
how CAG members should provide responses during meeting discussions.

* Access to information (Principle #5). Provide information from a community-
wide survey to all CAG members allowing them to consider the attitudes of
community residents and make better decisions.

Conclusion

The participatory nature of scenic highway designation allows the people who are

most affected by the impacts of designation to guide the process. FDOT already provides

assistance to communities moving through the process of designation through the Florida









Scenic Highways Program Manual and the scenic highway coordinator. To make better

use of these resources, this research suggests the following activities are important to

participants. These suggestions should be incorporated in ways that will not take away

from local community control over designation, but allow communities to access

information that will help them better achieve a more quality process.

* Designing meeting times and locations that can help provide access to a diversity of
community members

* Disclosing information about the designation process, and gathering information
from the community.

* Providing a meeting structure that promotes constructive interaction and attempts
to purposely limit domination by individual and groups.

The Florida Scenic Highways Program (FSHP) is designed to be a participatory

process that is led by residents along the proposed roadway corridor (FSHP 1995). The

FSHP has designed a comprehensive program manual to guide the Corridor Advocacy

Group through the process of gaining community support and moving through the formal

designation application. As new insights become available, it is important for the FDOT

to provide the best possible resources to guide communities through scenic highway

designation. This research has added to that effort by concentrating on representation in

the CAG, perceptions of the structure of the process, and its effect on group efficacy.

The overall purpose of this research was to evaluate the attitudes of a group of

community residents (CAG) participating in the Big Bend Scenic Byway (BBSB)

designation process. A political approach provides a good perspective from which to

evaluate these attitudes. This is because the designation process was designed to gather

perspectives from a wide variety of residents, and has many similar characteristics to









other decision-making forums discussed in political science and environmental policy

literature.

The results detailed in this thesis confirm past research that representation in US

community planning is often composed of residents who have different socio-

demographics from the surrounding area. One of the key areas of disagreement

surrounding this issue is whether or not the attitudes of the surrounding community are

misrepresented. Some authors have suggested that values of the average citizens are

washed out by the dominance of people representing interest groups. Others have found

that interest groups can approximate the public's attitudes adequately. In either case, the

only method of determining this is through the use of further social research that

compares the views of participants of planning forums and the surrounding community

residents. In order for the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process to maintain its

legitimacy, a survey should be conducted of the population in each county where the

byway is proposed to intersect. The CAG could gather information from the community

on how to represent their interests. This study indicates that although the members do not

represent the entire community, their attitudes do not reflect an interest groups'

perspective.

The legitimacy of public participation is not only linked to the representation of

average citizens' views, but also to how the structure of the process promotes

empowerment of the participants. Principles of public involvement can be used to guide

the discourse of institutions and citizens that will produce processes and outcomes that

are seen as more favorable and competent to all involved.









To determine which principles can positively influence legitimacy, more research

must be conducted that gathers information directly from the participants themselves.

Participants involved in various kinds of participation forums may place importance on

different principles. Sampling larger populations can allow the use of factor analysis that

statistically groups characteristics of public participation into relevant domains. This can

further lead theorists to refine the principles (such as power) to reflect better relationships

among individual variables.

The role of efficacy in participatory public participation research is not well

defined. Although some work has been conducted on political efficacy in terms of voting,

collective efficacy related to participatory democratic processes is not well established.

This research has identified some of the characteristics and principles of the participation

process that have an effect on participants' collective efficacy. Further investigation is

warranted to determine if other structural elements also have an effect. This may help

community planners to design better strategies that can increase the ability of group

decision-making.

Improving the discourse between participants and decision-makers is a continuing

effort that grows incrementally with each study and community-planning event. The case

of the Big Bend Scenic Byway designation process serves as a step toward the goal of

developing a set of criteria that represent the ideal communication structure of decision-

making processes. The importance of citizen participation is well substantiated by

philosophers, scientists, professionals, and mostly by the average individuals who seek to

give their input to influence the policies that affect them. The Florida Department of

Transportation can improve the success of scenic highway designation by providing an






54


open process that discloses information, and is seen as fair and legitimate to the CAG

participants and the surrounding community.

Finally, several variables had an effect on individual member's perception of the

ability of CAG as a whole. Participants' faith in having consensus as a part of the

designation process and the having equal representation both had a positive relationship

with collective efficacy. However, the level of education and gender both indicated that

females and participants with higher education tended to perceive the collective efficacy

of the CAG as low















APPENDIX A
BIG BEND SCENIC BYWAY CORRIDOR ADVOCACY GROUP SURVEY













Big Bend Scenic Byway

Corridor Advocacy Group Survey
The goal of this study is to understand residents' attitudes toward public participation in local planning
as well as the potential impacts of the proposed Big Bend Scenic Byway to this area of Florida.
Your participation is greatly appreciated.


People may have a number of reasons for participating in community planning processes. Listed below are some possible reasons you
may have for participating in the Corridor Advocacy Group (CAG) scenic byway meetings.
Please indicate how important each reason is to you for participating in the CAG by circling a number 1- 5. 1 being Not Important At
All and a 5 being Extremely Important.


-c5
SL | C CL C
I participate in the CAG to.... o E
Z= = = > x, E
Be more involved with my community 1 2 3 4 5
Learn new things from other members 1 2 3 4 5
Help preserve the small-town character of this community 1 2 3 4 5
Make the community a better place to live 1 2 3 4 5
Learn and develop new skills 1 2 3 4 5
Have input into community issues 1 2 3 4 5
Gain a stronger sense of community togetherness 1 2 3 4 5
Be with people whom I enjoy 1 2 3 4 5
Help change this community within an organized group 1 2 3 4 5
Influence government policies 1 2 3 4 5
Meet other members of my community 1 2 3 4 5















,o Po
I participate in the CAG to.... CS E C
E E E c> _E _

Have a more stable community economy 1 2 3 4 5
Do something more fulfilling than my current job 1 2 3 4 5
Become more vocal about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5
Learn more about what happens in this community 1 2 3 4 5
Meet new people with similar interests 1 2 3 4 5
Further my job or career 1 2 3 4 5
Feel like I make a difference 1 2 3 4 5
Solve a specific problem of concern to me 1 2 3 4 5
Help preserve the surrounding natural areas 1 2 3 4 5
Fulfill my duty as a community member 1 2 3 4 5
Other: 1 2 3 4 5


2. Different aspects of public participation may help to govern and direct a public meeting or a public decision-making process. Below
are some aspects that may be important to you.

Please indicate how important you believe the following statements are as they relate to the Scenic Byway Corridor Advocacy
Group meetings. 1 being Not Important At All and a 5 being Extremely Important


















Characteristics of Public Participation
Z^ M^ ^ >^I


Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being
conducted.
Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making
comments.
Give advance notice of meetings.
Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information.
Conduct meetings at convenient locations.
Develop rules about acceptable behavior.
Foster an atmosphere of open communication.
Gather local knowledge.
Allow participants to review the information presented at the
meeting.
Develop relationships that encourage future participation.
Have a diversity of community members represented at the
meetings.
Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn detailed
information about the issues being discussed.
Put all concerns on the agenda.
Conduct meetings at convenient times.
Build trust among participants.
Fully disclose information.


1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5














-c5
C oC
Characteristics of Public Participation
z ( >g Iu E

Allow people who are most affected to have the most 1 2 3 4 5
representation.
Conduct meetings according to consensus. 1 2 3 4 5
Prevent any one group from having too much influence. 1 2 3 4 5
Other 1 2 3 4 5


3. Next, we want to understand how effective you feel the CAG has been in reaching the following goals.

Please indicate your opinions about these by circling a number 1-7. 1 being Not at all and a 7 being A Great Deal.


t


How able are the CAG members to...... E (
o o0
z O 2
write a designation plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
come to the meetings ready to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
successfully effect change 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work together to achieve the common goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hold meetings convenient for working people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
access information about the community's needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


















How able are the CAG members to...... E (
z o o 2

work together in the future 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
promote the byway to the community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stay on task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work collaboratively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
give every member an opportunity to contribute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work through difficult impasses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
operate according to consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
give equal consideration of all issues presented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
have the skills to achieve the designation goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


4. For the following questions we are interested in how much effect you believe you personally had on the CAG.
Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being No Effect and a 5 being Much Effect.




W c W

How much were you able to..... "
z >w ] ; ;a

influence the decisions of the group 1 2 3 4 5
contribute to the writing of the designation plan 1 2 3 4 5
promote the designation of the byway to other citizens 1 2 3 4 5
express your views on important byway decisions 1 2 3 4 5

















How much were you able to..... i a ) E "
z >w S U

get other citizens involved in the byway designation 1 2 3 4 5
process
Other 1 2 3 4 5
5. Community members may have differing opinions about the amount of control they have over certain aspects of their community.


Indicate how much you feel your community is able to influence the following by circling a number 1-9.



0 0 o- = -
People in this community can..... z > o c 0S
control the level of tourism development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
control the management of the surrounding natural
resources
influence local government decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
preserve the aesthetic value of the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
keep our surroundings beautiful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
effectively preserve our cultural heritage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
preserve the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
show that they are great neighbors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ensure the same level of friendliness remains in our 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
community.
effectively protect wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9














6. We would like to know how you feel about your community. For each of the following statements, please indicate how much you agree
or disagree.

Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree.


2 -M -a

(1)0 0 Z < )
I am definitely part of this community. 1 2 3 4 5
If I had to move from my community now, I would be sorry 1 2 3 4 5
to leave it.
I am interested in what happens in this community. 1 2 3 4 5
I plan to be living in this community 5 years from now. 1 2 3 4 5
If I could keep the home I have right now, but move to 1 2 3 4 5
another community, in the area I probably would.
I have an emotional attachment to my community. 1 2 3 4 5
I am willing to invest my time and talent to make the community 1 2 3 4 5
an even better place.
What happens in the community is important to me 1 2 3 4 5
I am willing to make financial sacrifices for the sake my 1 2 3 4 5
community.












7. Next we would like to zero in to your specific neighborhood.


For each of the following statements please indicate the likelihood of each of the situations by circling a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly
Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree.


I would ask a neighbor to.... Very Very
Unlikely Neutral Likely
Watch my house while I'm away 1 2 3 4 5
Borrow something 1 2 3 4 5
Help in an emergency 1 2 3 4 5
Offer advice about a personal problem 1 2 3 4 5
Discuss a problem in the neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5


8. What aspect of living in your community do you most identify with? (Please mark one)

D The friendships and social connections
D The physical/natural landscape
a The values, culturess, and ways of life












9. Please indicate how much you agree that each of the following statements should be part of a scenic byway plan in the Big Bend
area.

Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Stongly Disagree and a 5 being Strongly Agree.




S2 0 2)
The Big Bend Scenic Byway should.... -2 & .
()1 0b Z < C)
Provide education and interpretation of the culture and natural resources along the 1 2 3 4 5
byway
Maintain the rural and scenic nature of the byway route 1 2 3 4 5
Be promoted to attract visitors 1 2 3 4 5
Increase tourism in the area 1 2 3 4 5
Be managed to protect it from increased visitor use 1 2 3 4 5
Add to the management problems of local government 1 2 3 4 5
Have the support of local citizens 1 2 3 4 5
Help preserve the historic and natural resources along the route 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Have citizen involvement in the planning and management of the byway
Other 1 2 3 4 5












10. Economic issues are an important aspect to the quality of life in a community by affecting the standard of living of the citizens who
live there. One of the biggest effects of tourism is its economic impact on the community. Please answer the following questions.

a. How likely would your household income change, if the number of tourists increased in the Big Bend area? Please circle a
number 1-7. 1 being Not At All Likely and 7 being Extremely Likely.


Not at all
Likely


Extremely
Likely


b. What percent of your current income comes from money spent by tourists to the Big Bend area? Provide your best estimate.
% of total income

11. Next, we would like to know your opinion about tourism and how you feel it would effect you and your community.

For each of the following statements, please indicate how much you feel things would get better or worse for you if tourism were to
increase in your community.
Please circle a number 1-5. 1 being Get Much Worse and a 5 being Get Much Better.
Community Issues Get much Get much
Worse Neutral Better
Opportunities for shopping 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities for recreation 1 2 3 4 5
The crime rate 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic congestion, litter, and noise 1 2 3 4 5
Public services such as police and fire protection 1 2 3 4 5
Preservation of local culture 1 2 3 4 5
Relationships between residents and tourists 1 2 3 4 5
The quality of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5
Opportunities for employment 1 2 3 4 5
Revenues for local governments 1 2 3 4 5













Community Issues Get much Get much
Worse Neutral Better
The price of goods and services 1 2 3 4 5
Increase in the cost of land and housing 1 2 3 4 5
Access for local people to places and events 1 2 3 4 5
The values and lifestyles of local people 1 2 3 4 5
How much I feel at home in this community 1 2 3 4 5
Local peoples' control of the community 1 2 3 4 5
The general appearance of the region 1 2 3 4 5


Finally, we are interested in understanding who participates in the Scenic
responses will be kept completely confidential.
12. Are you? D male OR D female


Byway designation process. Please be aware that your


13. What is the year of your birth? 19
14. What town do you live in?
15. How many years have you lived there? years
16. Please list the community groups you are a member of, such as: school related, religious, civic, service, hobby oriented,
organized sports for children, organized sports for adults, neighborhood, etc.

17. How many hours a month do you participate in the above community groups?

hours a month

18. Which of the above groups, if any, did you represent at the CAG?
Group(s):














19. Which of these best describes your race or ethnic group? (Check all that apply)


American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
African American I Other (plea


D Latino or Hispanic
I Caucasian
ise specify)


20. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please mark one)


Eighth Grade or less
Some High School
High School Graduate or GED
Trade/Technical/Vocational training


Some College
College Graduate
Some Graduate School or beyond
Graduate Degree


21. What was your approximate total household income, before taxes, in 2001?


Less than 10,000
10,000 to 19,999
20,000 to 29,999
30,000 to 39,999
40,000 to 49,999
50,000 to 59,999


60,000 to 69,999
70,000 to 79,999
80,000 to 89,999
90,000 to 99,999
100,000 or more


In the space below, please include any comments you may have. Thank you again for your time and assistance in this important
project.
Thank You For Your Participation!


















APPENDIX B
MAP OF STUDY AREA


Wakulla
County


LIBERTY






.. ..:, .
,,ti':















APPENDIX C
CORRELATIONS OF INDICIES AND ITEMS FOR LOGIT ANALYSIS







Table 9. Correlations of Principles and Collective Efficacy Index


Collective Efficacy Index


Principle 6
(Develop
Relationships
that Encourage
Future
Participation)


Collective
c ie Pearson Correlation 1.000 .385**
Efficacy Index
Sig. .008
N 47 46


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Table 10. Correlations of Characteristics of Public Participation and Collective Efficacy
Index
Develop
Develop Conduct meetings
Collective relationships that according to
according to
Efficacy Index encourage future
consensus
participation. cons
Collective
Pearson
Efficacy Correlation 1.000 .414** .504**
Correlation
Index
Sig .004 .000
N 46 46 44
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).













Table 11. Correlations of Items Used in Collective Efficacy index


successfully effect
change


successfully effect
change



stay on task



work collaboratively


Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N


give every member an Pearson
opportunity to contribute Correlation
Sig


work through difficult
impasses


operate according to
consensus


Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig
N


1.000


.806**


.000
40


.810**


stay work
on task collaboratively

.806** .810**


.000 .000
40 38

1.000 .912**
.000
44 41

.912** 1.000


.000
38


.000
41


.811**


.000
40


.849**


.000
39


.820**


.000
38


.846** .814**
.000 .000
43 40

.803** .799**
.000 .000
42 40

.798** .813**
.000 .000
41 39


give every member
an opportunity to
contribute


.811**
.000
40

.846**
.000
43

.814**
.000
40

1.000


44

.894**
.000
42

.873**
.000
40


work through difficult operate according to
impasses consensus


.849**
.000
39

.803**
.000
42

.799**
.000
40

.894**
.000
42

1.000


42

.911**

.000
40


.820**
.000
38

.798**
.000
41

.813**
.000
39

.873**
.000
40

.911**
.000
40

1.000


42


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).















APPENDIX D
MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION













Table 12. Importance of CAG Meeting Characteristics
Not At All Somewhat Very Extremely
Characteristics of Public Participation Mean1 Important Important Important Important Important
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Fully disclose information 4.29 2.0 17.6 29.4 51.0
Have a diversity of community members represented at the 4.24 3.9 15.7 33.3 47.1
meetings
Foster an atmosphere of open communication 4.22 23.5 31.4 45.1
Give advance notice of meetings 4.20 2.0 18.0 38.0 42.0
Prevent any one group from having too much in influence 4.14 3.9 17.6 39.2 39.2
Conduct meetings at convenient times 4.12 23.5 41.2 35.3
Gather local knowledge 4.10 2 23.5 35.3 39.2
Build trust among participants 4.10 3.9 21.6 35.3 39.2
Give adequate time for all participants to discuss information 4.06 3.9 23.5 35.3 37.3
Give participants the opportunity to be heard when making
-.a) .4.02 27.5 37.3 33.3 -
S comments
Conduct meetings at convenient locations 4.02 2.0 29.4 33.3 35.3
Develop relationships that encourage future participation 3.98 2 27.5 39.2 31.4
Allow participants to review the information presented at the
3.92 3.9 27.5 41.2
meeting
Allow participants to have the opportunity to learn detailed 1.0 .
6 .. 3.8 10.0 26.0 32.0 32.0
information about the issues being discussed
Develop rules about acceptable behavior 3.69 3.9 7.8 29.4 33.3 25.5
Put all concerns on the agenda 3.65 3.9 3.9 33.3 41.2 17.6
Conduct meetings according to consensus 3.14 6.1 18.4 38.8 28.6 8.2
Allow participants to influence the way the meeting is being 3.04 12.0 24.0 24.0 28.0 12.0
conducted
Allow people who are most affected to have the most
reresentation2.90 16.0 26.0 28.0 12.0 18.0
representation















APPENDIX E
MEANS AND FREQUENCIES OF COLLECTIVE EFICACY ITEMS













Table 13. Collective Efficacy Items
Not At Very
S All Somewhat Moderately Able
How able are the CAG members to.... n Mean1 Al Soe t Moe ey Ae

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Come to meeting ready to work

Have the skills to achieve the designation goal
Work collaboratively
Give every member an opportunity to contribute

Promote the byway to the community

Work together in the future

Stay on task
Hold meetings convenient for working people
Work together to achieve the common goal
Operate according to consensus
Work through difficult impasses
Write a designation plan

Successfully affect change
Give equal consideration of all issues presented

Access information about the community's needs


5.81

5.74
5.68
5.68

5.67

5.64

5.64
5.57
5.56
5.50
5.33
5.32

5.24

5.19

5.16


2.3 4.7

7.1
4.9
.3 4.5

!.2 6.5

6.8

6.8
8.7
.4 2.2
!.4 2.4 4.8
!.4 2.4 7.1
22.0

.4 7.3


7.0

14.3
12.2
11.4

6.5

9.1

11.4
13.0
8.9
9.5
9.5
7.3

14.6


11.6

16.7
22.0
15.9

21.7

18.2

25.0
17.4
22.2
26.2
23.8
9.8

24.4


44.2

21.4
31.7
34.1

30.4

45.5

25.0
34.8
37.8
23.8
35.7
39.0

39.0


30.2

40.5
29.3
31.8

32.6

20.5

31.8
26.1
24.4
31.0
19.0
22.0

12.2


7.0 2.3 4.7 14.0 16.3 34.9 20.9

6.8 6.8 18.2 15.9 29.5


















REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4):216-224.

Ashford, N and Rest, K. 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities.
(Report) Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2): 117-148.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company.

Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3):75-78.

Berman, E. 1997. Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2):
105-112.

Barach, P. 1967. The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique. Little Brown: Boston.

Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience.
Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Blahna, D, and Yonts-Shepherd, S. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning:
Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural
Resources, 2(3):209-227.

Burke, E. 1968. Citizen participation strategies. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 34(5):287-294.

Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W.A. 1954. The Voter Decides. New York: Wiley.

Carroll, J.M., and Reese, D.D. 2003. Community collective efficacy: Structure and
consequences of perceived capacities in the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-36 (January 6-9, Kona).


75









Chess, C. and Purcell K. 1999. Public participation and the environment: Do we know
what works? Environment Science and Technology, 33(16):2685-2692.

Cupps, D.S. 1977. Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration,
37(5):478-487.

Daneke,. G.G., Garcia M.W., and Priscoli, J.D. 1983. Public Involvement and Social
Impact Assessment. Boulder: Westview Press.

Desario, J., and Langston, S. 1987. Toward a Metapolicy for Social Planning In: Citizen
Participation in Public Decision Making. Desario, J and S. Langston eds.
Greenwood Press: Westport, 205-221.

Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Drysek, J. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fiorino, D. 1989. Environmental risk and democratic processes: A critical review.
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14(2):501-547.

Foucault, M. 1988. The Ethic of Care For The Self as a Practice of Freedom. In: The
Final Foucault, eds. J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2-20.

FSHP 1996. Florida Scenic Highways Program Manual, Florida Department of
Transportation Central Environmental Office and Transportation Consulting
Groups, INC. Revised by: Carter & Burgess, INC.

Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian
valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Goddard, R. D. & Goddard, Y. L. 2001. A Multilevel Analysis of the Influence of
Collective Efficacy on Teacher Efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17(7):807-818.

Habermas, J. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action Vol.1: Reason and the
Rationalization of Society. Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. 1987. Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: System and Lifeworld.
Boston. Beacon Press.

Hadden, S.G. 1991. Public perception of hazardous waste. Risk Analysis, 11(1):47-57.

Huntington, S. 1970. The democratic distemper. The Public Interest, 41:9-38

Kasperson, R.E. 1994. Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for
risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3):275-281.









Kozub, S. and McDonnell, J. 2000. Exploring the relationship between cohesion and
collective efficacy in rugby teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(2): 120-130.

Laird, F.L. 1993. Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision-making.
Science. Technology, and Human Values, 18(3):341-361.

Lynn, F.M. 1990. Public participation in risk management decisions: The right to define,
the right to know, and the right to act. Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1:95-101.

Lynn F.M., and Busenberg, G.D. 1995. The Redemption of the Citizen Advisory
Committees: A Perspective from Critical Theory. In: Fairness and Competence in
Citizen Participation Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. O. Renn,
T. Webler, and P. Wiederman, eds. Dordecht: Kluwer Acedemic Publishers, 87-
102.

Mill, J.S. 1873. Considerations on Representative Government. New York: Henry Holt
and Company.

Moore, S. 1996. Defining "successful" environmental dispute resolution: Case studies
from public land planning in the United States and Australia. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 16(2):151-169.

Moote, M. A. and McClaran, M.P. 1997. Implications of participatory democracy for
public land planning. Journal of Range Management, 50(5):473-481.

Moynihan, D. 1969. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. New York: Maximillian.

Overdevest, C. 2000. Participatory democracy, representative democracy, and the nature
of diffuse and concentrated interests. Society and Natural Resources, 13(7):685-
699.

Palerm, J. 1999. Public participation in environmental decision-making: Examining the
Aarhus Convention. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 1(2):229-244.

Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Romanillos-Palerm. 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment: An
Empirical Theoretical Evaluative Framework. PhD Thesis, Imperial College,
University of London.

Rosenbaum, N. 1978. Citizen participation and democratic theory; in: S. Langton (ed.)
Citizen Participation in America, Lexington Books: Lexington, 43-54

Rousseau, J.J. 1968 (1762). The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston,
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.









Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., and Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime:
A multi level study of collective efficacy. Science, 227(5328):918-924.

Schweitzer M, Canes S.A., Peelle, B.E. 1996. Measuring the Success of Public
Participation Efforts Associated with the U.S. Department of Energy's
Environmental Management Activities. Paper presented at the National Association
of Environmental Professionals 21st Annual Conference, June 2-6, 1996. Houston,
TX.

Shrader-Frechette, K. 1990. Scientific method, anti-foundationalism, and public policy.
Risk: Issues in Health and Safety, 1:23-41.

Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a
Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Syme, G.J., and Sadler, B.S. 1994. Evaluation of public involvement in water resources
planning: A researcher-practitioner dialogue. Evaluation Review, 18(5):523-542.

Thomas, J.C. 1990. Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a
borrowed theory. Public Administration Review, 50:435-445.

Tuler, S., and Webler, T. 1999. Voices from the forest: What participants expect from a
public participation process. Society and Natural Resources, 12(5):437-453.

Webler, T. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models
for Environmental Discourse. eds. 0. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Press.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., and Krueger, R. 2001. What is a good public participation process?
Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3):435-450.

Wilson, J.Q. 1980. The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books.

Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yafee. 1994. Building bridges across agency boundaries: In
search of excellence in the USFS. A research report submitted to the USDA Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, in fulfillment of USDA Forest Service
cooperative agreement PNW 92-0215. Ann Arbor: School of Natural Resources
and the Environment, University of Michigan.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Noah M. Standridge graduated with a bachelor's degree in elementary education

from the University of Florida in 1998. Continuing at UF to receive a master's degree in

forestry, he specialized in the social research of natural resources. Mr. Standridge desires

to continue his career through teaching and service to others. Some of his favorite

hobbies are mountain climbing, caving, and kayaking, and he hopes to possibly integrate

these into his career as well. He is happily married to Brinly Standridge and has one son,

Micah.