Discussion on Participatory Factors
Webler and Tuler (2001) elaborated discussion on participatory factors including four factors mentioned as follows :
Factor A: A good process is credible and legitimate
At the heart of this perspective lies a deep concern for ensuring the process is widely seen as credible and legitimate. Policies are more implementable if they are popularly accepted and only a credible and legitimate process can acquire this level of support. In this perspective, a credible and legitimate process validates itself through process features such as being respectful to the publics and open at every step. It shows respect and an authentic willingness to learn from the public by seeking out and valuing local knowledge and experiences.
In addition to these process design features, a good process acquires public support for watershed planning through education and outreach. Of foremost importance is that people have an awareness of the watershed, its problems, and the policies being implemented. Watershed planning is greatly furthered when publics have a sense of awareness of the watershed and a good process takes care to establish this perception. According to this perspective, these are two important ends that a good process should strive to achieve.
Pitfalls Regarding Local Characteristics – Community Participatory in Watershed Management [5]
Factor B: A good process is competent and information-driven
From this perspective, the role of quality information in the process is central. The focus is on producing an action plan that is technically competent. For this to happen, not only does every decision need to be justified with evidence, but also the process needs to engage its participants with information so that people are making better decisions. This necessarily involves educating people about the watershed and its problems. One way that a good process engages people is by seeking out local knowledge. Of course, scientific knowledge is also sought out and all information brought into consideration is evaluated inconsistent ways. Substantiating assumptions is also considered important; it was ranked higher on this factor than any other.
Information cannot by itself, however, drive a decision. Information needs to be interpreted by people. Competent decisions are aided by democratic and fair processes. Thus, it is critical for all people to have a fair and just opportunity to participate and be heard and for the public to endorse the final action plan. For all these reasons there needs to be a clear plan for doing public participation which includes a substantial outreach effort that involves as many people as possible.
Factor C: A good process fosters fair democratic deliberation.
The two previous perspectives emphasized process legitimacy and competence. Factor C emphasizes the theme of fair democratic deliberation. According to this view, fair democratic deliberation is related to issues of power and equity in the process. These issues are reflected in three of the most highly ranked statements on this factor. Accordingly, giving people representation in the process, influence in agenda-setting, and influence over outcomes are all key to understanding the meaning of equal power in this perspective.
As with the first perspective, the publics’ sense that they feel part of the project matters. However, the reason for why this matters could not be more different. In Factor A, the motivation for including the public was strategic — to gain legitimacy so that policies will be implementable. Here, participation should be meaningful because it is morally right to give people affected by decisions a chance to participate in shaping them. The publics should be involved in the process, not just stakeholders.
In contrast to Factor B, the role of information and evidence in the process is not emphasized. It is striking to see that this factor gave the lowest ranking to the idea of having peer review of expert knowledge drive decisions. This reflects the intersection of two beliefs: a resistance toward the idea of an elitist process and a deemphasis of the role information should play in the process.
Factor D: A good process emphasizes constructive dialogue and education
More than any other, this perspective highlights the need for decision-makers to pay attention to educating people and creating constructive dialogue. Outreach is of primary importance. Interestingly, the number of participants is a poor indicator for these conditions. In other words, the goal of the outreach is to involve people who really can participate meaningfully and constructively, not to merely create large turnouts.
In the public participation process envisioned by this perspective, the WCC listens and reflects on what is said. Creating opportunities for people to speak is not enough; they need to be heard by the decision-makers. Yet, the decision-making power clearly resides with the WCC and not the public according to this view. As with Factor A, promoting quality interaction should not undermine the authority of the decision-makers. The decision-making body is presumed to retain responsibility and authority for the final outcomes. Unlike factor C, just because someone makes a compelling case for something the WCC is not obliged to adopt it into the action plan. Furthermore, the final action plan should not focus only on being technically competent or having substantiated assumptions. Both of these items point to the need for leadership to be free to exercise judgment in decision-making under uncertainty. Leaders should not rely on public approval for the action plan.