Why Do (or Don't) Local Government Officials Participate in Watershed Planning Efforts?

EPA Nonpoint Source News-Notes October 2000, Issues #62

EDITOR'S NOTE: Adapted from Coastlines, a publication of the Urban Harbors Institute at the University of Massachusetts.

One of the problems facing any watershed planning effort is to engage people from local governments in the process. The National Estuary Program's (NEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) encourages the involvement of local governmental officials in both the planning and implementation phases. Local government officials include both town or city employees (planners, managers, etc.) and citizen board members (boards of health, conservation commissions, selectmen, etc.). They bring knowledge and expertise on local conditions and are uniquely positioned to rally public support needed to implement management plan actions. Despite the significance of their role, very little is known about the factors that encourage or constrain their participation in environmental policymaking.

To reveal more about the participation of local government officials in watershed planning, a team of social scientists with the nonprofit Social and Environmental Research Institute developed a study focused on NEPs with funding from the National Science Foundation. The involvement of three NEPs was investigated: Massachusetts Bays, New Hampshire Estuaries, and Casco Bay. These three NEPs had expressed interest in pursuing this topic and had similar regional and political settings.

With assistance from the directors of the selected NEPs, the scientists compiled a list of local government officials, excluding, by definition, state and federal employees. Although regional or county government plays a smaller role in New England, several people from regional planning commissions were interviewed. Thirty-five local government officials were interviewed concerning the factors that entered into their decision to participate.

The results from the interviews can be grouped into three categories of factors influencing people's decisions. The first category included factors unique to an individual's experience, skills, interests, or beliefs. For example, important concerns in this category included knowledge of the other people involved in the project. Also significant were individual attitudes toward learning new things and meeting new people, and dealing with conflict. Some cited a strong environmental ethic or a sense of civic or social duty as important factors. Others spoke about whether their involvement would contribute to their own personal education and growth (Will I get anything out of this?) as well as the project's success (Are my skills needed here?) Are they just looking for free labor or will I get something from this?

A second category of factors influencing their decision involved issues beyond the control of the individual. These frequently related to social, political, or economic considerations. Some municipalities discouraged officials from participating because they "knew they had dirty laundry and did not want it aired." Other people were instructed by their town manager to attend as part of their job. Some people did not participate because citizen awareness of environmental problems with the estuary was low or nonexistent in their community. While a tradition of regional cooperation might be enough to encourage some local governmental officials to participate, others made a careful cost-benefit analysis of whether their time would be worth it for the community.

The third group of factors related to the way the NEP was managed. A prominent issue was the ability to make real progress based on clear objectives and competent leadership. Participating local government officials attributed their involvement to good group dynamics, a sense of camaraderie, and regular face-to-face contact that builds friendships and strong working relationships. Non-participating local government officials attributed their lack of involvement to a feeling of a lack of respect or that their input was not valued. Some felt that the NEP did not care about local problems, but was taking advantage of free labor. Others complained of poorly facilitated meetings, needlessly acrimonious discussions, a measurable lack of progress, and inconvenient meeting times and locations. Was I directly invited? Was I called? When I arrived, was I welcomed? Was my input valued? Was I respected?

What can coastal managers and watershed organizations like the NEP do to entice local govern- ment officials to participate? The study results suggest they could focus on the first and third groups of factors. This means focusing attention on producing a working environment that respects all voices, builds a sense of camaraderie, gives real power to the participants, clearly states the objectives and timetable, and makes clear progress on these objectives. They are more likely to participate if the watershed project first learns about local problems and incorporates these into the NEP's objectives. Going out into the communities, listening to concerns, and inviting local participation are much more productive ways to secure the involvement of local government officials than merely sending a form letter to the town clerk, mayor's office, or county commissioners.

NEPs and others should also use knowledge of the first group of factors to focus recruitment efforts on local government officials more disposed toward participating. This means seeking out people who have a strong environmental ethic, enjoy working collaboratively with peers, take a regional perspective, and pursue goals linked to the project's objectives.

Invitations to new participants should include announcements listing existing participants and provide opportunities for networking and learning. For NEPs, mini-grants have been tremendously successful because they enable a local government official to make progress on his or her local agenda while remaining connected to the watershed project.

"A lack of time" is everyone's first response to the question of why they don't become involved. But this research suggests that it is more a matter of setting priorities than the availability of time itself. People make time for things that are most important to them. The challenge for watershed planning and community-based environmental protection is to invigorate local support by addressing local problems, and do so in a coordinated manner that enhances mutual benefits and makes progress on regional problems.

[For more information, contact Thomas Webler, Social and Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 253, Leverett, MA 01054; Phone: (413) 625-9046 or e-mail: twebler@crocker.com.]

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council