Understanding the concept of representation within the context of local forest management decision making

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00031-XGet rights and content

Abstract

Public involvement in forest management decision making has become more and more prevalent. With this growth, a large body of literature has emerged that examines ideal forms of public participation processes. Despite these scholarly advances, it is argued that the literature fails to account for the full concept of representation, which is relegated to a one-dimensional interpretation based on the correspondence of the representatives and their constituents, known as descriptive representation. In this paper, a statistical comparison of Alberta-based Public Resource Advisory Groups and the provincial general public is provided. The results are indicative of other similar studies where differences in socio-demographic characteristics and belief and values between the public and representative groups exist. However, in the second part of the paper, a full theoretical treatment of representation is given. In addition to descriptive representation, two other forms of representation are introduced: the representation of subjective interests and the representation of objective interests. Both provide a different interpretation of what constitutes representation and has important consequences for an understanding of forest-management decision making.

Introduction

The improvement and/or expansion of public involvement are lauded as critical components of sustainable forest management (SFM) decision-making. For example, in Canada, a key Federal–Provincial policy initiative, the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) framework, states that public participation will incorporate the full range of social values in decisions and the responsiveness of institutions to change in values over time... (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1999). Similarly, at a provincial level, the Government of Alberta's Alberta Forest Legacy: Implementation for sustainable forest management states that effective public involvement requires the decision-making processes be developed in order to ensure the that local values and the planning process are balanced... (Government of Alberta, 1999).

This trend exhibited in Canada and Alberta is typical in nearly all European and North American countries and is part of a larger political process where central decision-making institution's diminished organisational and resource capacities have led to devolution of decision-making responsibilities to local groups. More significantly, at the same time, local level groups have emerged as the result of localised issues that central agencies are unable to address. This trend towards greater local public participation should generate some important political debates about key aspects of democratic theory. There are several key areas to consider. These include the debate on direct vs. representative democracy, defining a ‘common’ interest, and differentiating between public and private interest. In this paper, a largely conceptual analysis of a particularly important aspect of democratic theory is highlighted. By doing so, the complexities of local decision-making with an ever-growing decentralised political system may be appreciated.

A key aspect of local public involvement and its role in democratic theory is criticised, namely the common misuse of the concept of representation. Most of the literature addressing relationships between representation and public participation in natural resource management contains assumptions that are incomplete and therefore problematic. The goal of this paper is to remedy this shortcoming by expanding the current understanding of representation at the local level.

In Alberta, calls for public participation have had an impact at the local forest level. Since 1991, all Alberta based Forest Management Agreement (FMA) holders have been required to facilitate Public Resource Advisory Groups (PRAGs) in order to improve the level of public involvement on their lease holdings (The Proceedings Forest Resource Advisory Group, 1999). These groups are the focal point of this paper. In total, there are 14 PRAG groups currently in operation throughout Alberta. PRAG membership is voluntary with members, usually 15–20 in number, representing a wide variety of different community-based organisations and interests (i.e. municipal, provincial, and federal governments, chambers of commerce, unions, senior citizens, recreation groups, etc.). Some PRAGs have also allocated public-at-large memberships where no particular interest is represented. The primary role of a PRAG is to provide advice to forest companies regarding their forest management planning process (i.e. cutblock size, road infrastructure, protected areas). Although these groups do not have final management authority, they do provide input and information that is implemented into forest management activities.

With this interest in enhancing the public participation process, there has been a spate of scholarly examinations and critiques of the process. Recently, Beckley (1999) reviewed and critically examined a number of different public involvement strategies in the Foothills Model Forest (FMF)1. This evaluation, based on previous studies (e.g. Duinker, 1998, Gundry and Heberlein, 1984, Lawrence and Daniels, 1996, McComas, 2001, Shindler and Neburka, 1997, Steelman and Ascher, 1997), considered the quality of participation (as opposed to quantity), full interaction (two-way flow), using information in the decision-making process, involving the decision makers directly, the establishment of a clear mandate, adaptability and flexibility in the process, and working with good information as the criteria for public participation effectiveness.

Surprisingly, one area of research that has been given limited attention is that of understanding the concept and consequences of representation. Representation is usually introduced as an important goal of any public participation process but is given only a superficial level of analysis. The popular conception of desirable representation in the public involvement literature is one in which the values, attitudes, and socio-economic characteristics of those involved in the public involvement process correspond to those of the general public. Beckley's comment is typical of the literature, namely that ‘the public involvement bodies should be representative of the desired target population.’ When it comes to representation, many local public participation processes are flawed because they do not necessarily reflect public values (Beckley, 1999, p. 10–11).

Other researchers have raised similar concerns about the need for a direct correspondence between public involvement processes and representation. Knopp and Caldbeck (1990) state that ‘[i]t is not enough to assume that volunteer organisations or public interest groups will adequately or fairly represent the total spectrum of public values’ (1990, p. 15). Tanz and Howard (1991) argue that the management of crown land should reflect society's preferences. Shindler et al. (1993) state that it is important for policy makers to balance the values of well established interest groups with those of the—in their case, the Oregon—public at large. They further their argument stating that responsive solutions require strategies that involve a broad-based, representative public. (Shindler et al., 1993, p. 39) concurs, saying that when evaluating public participation using social goals, processes should ‘reflect the larger public they seek to represent’ Knopp and Caldbeck (1990).

It is argued that statements such as these reflect only a partial understanding of the concept of representation as evident in Hanna Pitkin's The Concept of Representation (Pitkin, 1967). This work is widely acknowledged as the authoritative work on representation. Pitkin's work originally examined national and state wide examples of representation; the same concepts at the local non-governmental level are applied here. The conception of representation found in the natural resource literature falls under the category called descriptive representation. Descriptive representation is the process of being like something for somebody; that is the representatives mirrors who they are representing. This requires a correspondence between the representative and his or her constituents. For example, from the above natural resource public participation literature, one would expect that rural areas with large number forest workers who are in favour of the local pulp mill expanding would contain a public involvement group comprising forestry workers who share the same values. However, descriptive representation is only one of three major types of representation. In addition to descriptive representation, two other forms of representation exist: the representation of attached subjective interests and the representation of objective unattached interests. These forms are conceptually important and have been neglected in the research cited above. It is suggested that representation can exist despite wide differences in the socio-economic background and values and beliefs of representatives and their constituents.

In this paper, a theoretical overview of descriptive, subjective, and objective forms of representation is provided. It is established that representation can have different and potentially conflicting meanings depending on the type emphasised. This is followed by a statistical comparison of socio-economic variables and the beliefs and attitudes of Alberta residents with those who are charged with representation in resource management decisions: PRAG members from across Alberta. The findings from these statistical comparisons are similar to the findings made by Gundry and Heberlein (1984) and McComas (2001): representatives are different from the public and the values they are supposed to represent. However, the statistical analysis presented becomes but a corollary to a larger underlying theoretical debate about the underlying theoretical underpinnings of public participation and democratic theory. In the final section, there is discussion of possible tensions between the different forms of representation and between group differences.

Section snippets

Descriptive representation: ‘standing for’ vs. ‘acting for’

Descriptive representation occurs when representatives take on the same image as their constituents. Under this view, any forum should be an exact miniature of its constituents at large. For example, advocates of proportional government (who present the same arguments as Beckley 1999 and others) argue that representation ‘must correspond in composition with the community...because you want to get a reflection of the general opinion of the nation’ (Pitkin, 1967, p. 62). Although logically

The study populations and samples

Data for the statistical comparison came from two 1999 surveys of Alberta residents and PRAG members. The general population sample for the Public Involvement in Alberta Forest Policy and Management study was chosen from a random sample of Alberta residents.2

Results: comparing PRAGS and the general public

Using the common lens of descriptive representation, how do PRAGS and the general public differ? Three domains were compared: (1) socio-economic characteristics; (2) attitudes towards public involvement in forest management decision-making; and (3) beliefs and attitudes toward policy influences.

Discussion and conclusion: moving beyond descriptive representation

The increased demand by the public for direct involvement in the policy process has become a common phenomenon across all sectors from agriculture, to health, to transportation. Furthermore, the demands are also varied ranging from national issues such as the participation in National Round Table on Forestry (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 1999) to localised concerns such as the development of a forestry company's 25-year Forest Management Plan. The direct involvement by citizens in

Acknowledgements

Funding for the surveys and this paper came from the Foothills Model Forest. The authors thank Bonita McFarlane (Canadian Forest Service) and Peter Boxall (University of Alberta) for their technical assistance in the development of the Public Resource Advisory Group and Alberta public involvement surveys.

References (20)

  • T. Beckley

    Public Involvement in Natural Resource Management in the Foothills Model Forest

    (1999)
  • J. Bentham
  • E. Burke
  • Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada

    (1999)
  • P.N. Duinker

    Public participation=promising progress: advances in forest decision-making in Canada

    Commonwealth Forestry Review

    (1998)
  • Alberta Forest Legacy: Implementation for Sustainable Forest Management

    (1999)
  • K. Gundry et al.

    Do public meetings represent the public

    APA Journal

    (1984)
  • T. Knopp et al.

    The role of participatory democracy in forest management

    Journal of Forestry

    (1990)
  • R.L. Lawrence et al.

    Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision Making

    (1996)
  • J. Mansbridge

    In Defence of Descriptive Representation. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, The San Francisco Hilton and Towers, August 29–September 1

    (1996)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (38)

  • Representation without accountability in forestry: experiences from the Social Responsibility Agreement in Ghana

    2017, Forest Policy and Economics
    Citation Excerpt :

    They argue against descriptive representation with the view that resemblances in the socio-economic characteristics between representatives and constituents do not necessarily enhance representative-constituent relation. They propose that the focus of representation should be on the articulation of constituents' substantive needs, asserting there should be a ‘shift of emphasis from a representation based simply on standing for, to that of acting for’ (Wellstead et al., 2003: 10). An emerged notion of representation that emphasizes the articulation of constituents' interests and their engagement in the decision making process is democratic representation.

  • Preferences of community public advisory group members for characteristics of Canadian forest tenures in pursuit of sustainable forest management objectives

    2013, Forest Policy and Economics
    Citation Excerpt :

    The first hypothesis, alluded to above, is that PAG members are chosen, or educated, by industry, so they are not representative of public interests (Charnley and Engelbert, 2005; Parkins, 2002). However, studies that have compared values of PAG members with those of professional foresters and the general public (i.e. McFarlane and Boxall, 2000; Wellstead et al., 2003) have found mixed results, depending on the specific question being considered. Future research could investigate whether these differences in values occur when considering links between structures of tenures and objectives of SFM.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text