WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 11, NO. 6 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION DECEMBER 1975

CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUPS AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING’

Jerry Delli Priscoliz

INTRODUCTION

Citizen advisory groups (CAG) are frequently regarded as major contributors to conflict resolution, consensus and eventual plan acceptance in regional water resources planning. The argument usually runs: Public participation through citizen advisory groups leads to two-way communication - this communication enhances development of a shared perception of intra-study interactions - shared perception then leads to conflict resolution, consensus and hopefully eventual plan acceptance.

This paper examines the degree to which citizen advisors and planners share perceptions about intra-study interactions in selected Level B regional water resources plans. Since shared perceptions are central to the above argument, the paper focuses on the shared perceptions of agreement or disagreement among planners and citizen advisors with regard to solving problems in regional water resources plans. Given the centrality of these perceptions to public participation’s role in planning, establishing their existence or nonexistence is critical in any evaluation of CAG potential for resolving conflicts and gaining plan acceptance.

After surveying the conceptual background of the citizen-asconflict-resolver argu- ment, the shared perceptions of citizen planner interactions are measured. These measurements are based on empirical data gathered at various stages of four Title I1 regional comprehensive Level B water resources planning studies. These four studies are:

0 Long Island Sound Study (LISS) of the New England River Basin Commission (N E RBC)

0 Connecticut River Basin Program (CRBP) of the NERBC 0 Maumee Level B Study of the Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC)

Platte Level B Study of the Missouri River Basin Commission (MRBC)

Paper No. 75074 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions are open until August 1 ,1976. The research presented here is part of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation research under the Department of Government, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. All high speed computations included have been done by the Georgetown University Computation Center.

2Policy Scientist, Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052.

1233

1234 Riscoli

While CAGs vary in structure and recruitment processes in each Level B study, they are notably similar. Recruitment tends to be predominantly informal and closed. It starts with an informal generation of a list of potential candidate names of active citizens in a region and ends with appointment by either the RBC Commission, State approval or some combination. Usually those active citizens involved in list generation remain in the resultant CAGS.~

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Planning is a process of developing programs of action to meet goals. As such planning

necessitates agreement on goals and means for achieving these goals. If the planning process is to operate effectively, there must be adequate means for resolving conflict among the participants over goals and means of attaining these goals. It is at this point of conflict resolution that public participation programs are expected to contribute.

The expectation that public participation programs contribute to conflict resolution in the planning process is based on the assumption that increased public understanding of the issues will create consensus. This assumption is implicit in Neal’s (1972) statement.

“Grass roots input is necessary for the preparation of meaningful comprehensive plans which may be both understood and supported by the public.”

Describing the role of the planner in this consensus building process Frauenglass (1973) writes:

“. . . The function of professionals would be to inform rather than persuade, to educate rather than proselytize. and to honestly reveal attitudes and conflicts rather than hide and disguise them. ”?izen groups and managers working together then formulate reasonable alternatives. . . ”

In both of these statements the citizens in the public participation programs are seen as facilitating and contributing to the planning process.

The necessary precondition for citizen contribution and facilitation of the process is an adequate knowledge of the facts of the problems. Often these facts are of a technical nature requiring the planner to “educate” the citizen. The planners in turn look to the citizens in the public participation programs to educate them on the public perception of the “needs” of a region (Delli Priscoli 1974). Lord and Warner (1973) see public participation as an aid to problem definition in the “iterative” planning process. This view is based on their belief that public participation helps meet the needs of “resolution of conflicts by creating plan formulation and political bargaining.”

3The Platte is somewhat of an exception. In that case CAG members were elected from a series of meetings of pre-notified citizens. For a full description of the similarities and differences in both structure and recruitment in CAGs note: Public Participation in Regional Land B Water Resources Planning: A Preliminmy View, October 1974, Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C., Special Consulting Report; and Innovations in Public Participation in Water Resources Planning, Proceedings: Second National Conference in Water Reuse, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Chicago, May 7,1975. (Both by the author.)

Citizen Advisory Groups and Conflict Resolution 1235

The result of public participation programs is the establishment of two-way communication which is expected to lead to conflict resolution and consensus. Burke et a1 (1973) describing this process, write, “[A bargaining] process at the field level possesses the needed requirements to establish a . . . linkage of scientific-technical intelligence to organize social action. . . ”

There are several problems with the process of two-way communication and the assumption that it leads to conflict resolution. There is no guarantee that the citizen participant will understand or attempt to understand the technical issues involved. Even if the citizen does make the effort, the solutions may not be as self-evident as they are assumed to be. One reason is that there is a degree of value bias inherent in the presentation of technical facts. Weinch (1972) writes:

“Incorporation of local preference is more complex than it initially appears to be.. . . There is the difficulty of differentiation between technical decisions based on accepted factual knowledge and devices based on value judgments. . . regarding the desirability of various alternative solutions. . . . Tragically, we often fail to distinguish effectively between technical decisions and value judgments.

Beyond these problems with the substance of the communication, there are problems with the process of citizen advisor-planner communication and interaction leading to consensus. One means of gauging the problems of interaction is to measure the degree to which the two sets of participants, planners and citizens in public participation programs, share the same perceptions about their interactions. Do planners and citizens agree that they disagree over solutions to a problem? Or do planners believe they disagree with citizens while citizens believe they agree with the planners? Substituting conflict for agreement, the following figure illustrates the potential types of shared or nonshared perceptions of conflict over planning problems.

cmn?LIm ABSENCEOF DOES NOT

PEFCEPTION

Figure 1 . Potential Types of Shared or Nonshared Perceptions of Conflict Over Planning Problems.

1236 Priscolj

The perceptions referred to are not perceptions about the content of the solutions to the problems. They are a step removed. These are perceptions of whether or not participants view the interaction over the search for solutions in the same manner. If a shared perception of the absence of conflict exists; the possibilities of planner-citizen consensus on solutions to problems is enhanced. If a shared perception of conflict exists, planners and citizens agree that they do not agree on solutions. From this common ground they can work together to resolve the conflicts and build consensus. On the other hand if there are no shared perceptions of conflict or its absence, there is no common ground from which to start the building toward consensus.

To summarize, the broad assumption is that public participation activates a two-way flow of communication which in turn leads to understanding conflict resolution and consensus. However, given the problems of technical content and fact/value interplay the substance of this communication may not necessarily lead to understanding and/or consensus. Further, even if the substance problems can be overcome, there are fundamental problems with the process of communication between participants in the planning process, specifically between planners and citizens participating in public participation programs. One area of difficulty is perceptions of the interaction process. Before any consensus can emerge, there must be a shared perception by both sets of participants on their stands relative to each other on the solutions to the major water resources planning problems.

SHARED PERCEPTIONS OF CONFLICT IN FOUR LEVEL B PLANS

The shared perceptions critical to consensus construction are concerned with solutions to problems in specific water resource planning issue areas. Therefore, in order to gauge whether the shared perceptual foundation for consensus exists, it is necessary to identify those issue areas that citizens (those participating in public participation programs) and planners consider important. Given those issue areas, the perception of conflict by both planners and citizens on solutions to problems in those areas can be measured.

(a) Issue Importance Out of a choice of twenty-five issue areas (WRC 1968) planners and citizens were

asked to rank, in order of importance, those issue areas they considered most important to their particular Level B planning study. Figure 2 displays the weighted rankings of issue areas derived from responses to the question of issue area importance. The rankings are broken down by citizen and planner.

Figure 3 represents the overall rankings for all participants in the planning process, citizen and special advisors, as well as planners. As a result some issues in figure 3 are not found in figure 2, such as waste disposal in the case of the LISS. This is because (a) there were more than just citizens and planners participating; and more importantly, (b) there are more planners than there are citizens causing the rankings to be skewed towards planners goals. This does not invalidate the summary rankings of figure 3 since planners, given their command over the technical information, often determine those issues which are considered important by planners and citizens. Supporting figure 3’s validity is the fact that for each study those issues ranked in figure 3 correspond with the issues most often mentioned by the study planners and most often cited in the study literature (Delli Priscoli 1974).

Citizen Advisory Groups and Conflict Resolution 1237

F i r s t

--__ Second

.- _____

Third Land Use \ la ter O u a l i t v Vater O u a l i t ) I Fourth Land Drainage Flood Control Recreat ion

__-___

I V I

E ~ ~

C i t l z e n P 1 ,"nor C l t i z r n P l l n n - r C I t i zcn

I r r i g a t i o n Lane Use tun1 Use Flood Contro l f lood Control

_- ~..~ ____

_____ __.__

Flood C m t r o l Water P u a l i t y :!tter Q J a l i t v Land U t e Land Use

Land U t e

Goals

Figure 2. Importance Ranking of Issue Areas by Study and by Primary Role.

RANK POSITION (1) MAUMEE (2) PLATTE (3) LISS (4) CRBP

First Water Quality Irrigation Land Use Planning Flood Control

Second Sediment Flood Control Water Quality Land Use Planning

Thud Land Use Planning Water Quality Waste Disposal Preservation of Resources

Fourth Waste Disposal Land Use Planning Recreation Water Quality

Fifth General Recreation Preservation of Recreation Planning Goals Resources

Figure 3. Importance Ranking of Issue Areas by Study and In General.

Besides identifying the salient issues for each study, figures 2 and 3 indicate the beginnings of the formation of a common ground suitable for consensus construction. Agreement on salient issue areas is necessary if shared perceptions of conflict are to develop. However, such agreement is not sufficient for shared perception; it merely establishes the types of problems over whose solutions planners and citizens will conflict. It does not ensure that citizens and planners will see that conflict in the same manner.

The assertion that figures 2 and 3 indicate the presence of some common ground is based on two facts. First, the rankings f6r each study in figure 3 correspond closely with citizen rankings in figure 2 meaning that the citizens do not deviate significantly from the study norm. Second, in figure 2 there is strong agreement among citizens and planners on

1238 Priscoli

salient issue areas. Planners and citizens agree on the top two salient issues for each study except the Maumee. In that case the planners and citizens agree on the top three issues; only they rank them differently. Also, for each study the final three issues are usually the same for planners and citizens. The difference is in their ranking. In some cases, different issues such as power needs or water supply will be introduced by one and not the other, but on the whole the planners and citizens agree on the salient issue areas.

(b ) Analysis of Planner-Advisor Shared Perceptions in Four Level B Planning Studies Planners and citizens do not necessarily agree either on the solutions to problems in

these areas or, as this paper shows, on their perceptions of whether or not they agree on solutions. To measure shared perceptions of conflict over solutions, planners and citizens in each study were asked to evaluate the amount of agreement between citizens and planners on solutions to problems in the issue areas they had defined as salient. By phrasing the question in terms of agreement rather than its opposite conflict, with all its negative connotations, it was hoped more accurate answers would occur. Respondents were asked to evaluate the degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement.

The responses were first arranged by issue areas (already ranked) and then placed into one of three categories: agreement, neutral, and disagreement. On the basis of this tri-category, issue classification a consensus perception index (CPI) was calculated. A CPI is an index varying from t 1 to -1, which is calculated by subtracting the percentage of disagreement responses from the percentage of agreement responses, multiplying the result by the percentage of the total responses that agreement and disagreement responses formed, and dividing that result by one hundred. The purpose of the last two steps is to correct for the neutral answers.

% Agreement t % Disagreement 100

CPI = (% Agreement - % Disagreement) x ( )

The absolute value of the CPI index indicates the strength of consensus among the citizens or planners; the sign indicates agreement or disagreement. For example, a t 1 .O means a strong perception (high consensus) of agreement. A t.01 means that the group has a very slight tendency to perceive agreement. A -1.0 indicates a strong perception of disagreement or conflict. Table 1 contains CPI indexes for citizens and planners for each issue area in each s t ~ d y . ~

Table 2 is a translation of the indexes in table 1 into agreement or disagreement on the nature of conflict. This translation of indexes into agreement or disagreement is based on a comparison of the indexes of citizen and planner perceptions of the nature of citizen/planner conflict over key issues of water resource planning in four Level B planning studies. The blank spaces in the chart are a result of the fact that different issues are salient to different regional studies.

Two issue areas with common salience to all four studies are water quality and land use. Interestingly, planners and citizens tend to agree about the nature of conflict over water quality, but not over land use planning. Recreation and waste disposal elicit disagreement among planners and citizens over the nature of the conflict over solutions to problems in these areas.

4Note the Technical notes for an illustration of the derivation of a CPI.

Citizen Advisory Groups and Conflict Resolution 1239

.

12rd) (3rd) ( 4 t h ) . . _ _ . . . . . 11stI -

B/W CITIZIW B/W CITIZENS B/W CITIZEX? B/W CITIZENS A?iDPLA"tls ANDPwxrEFs ANDPLWEFs ANDPIANNERs ._ ___. . . .

I Issue Area warn Lard use Iiaste Quality S e d i m m t a t i o n Planning D i s p o s a l

: 1 I Planner +.19 -.28 +.12 - . l o

TABLE 1 . Consensus Perception Indices for Salient Issues in Four Level B Plans.

. . . .---I_

15th)

B/W CITIZENS A M ) P I " F E

Genl. Planning coals

0

Table 2 shows only whether there is agreement or disagreement on the nature of conflict between citizens and planners over solutions to problems in key issues in water resources planning. Table 1, on the other hand, shows what the nature of the conflict is; how the participants' perceptions of conflict relate to each other over the different issues.

In the Maumee, planners and citizens both perceive agreement on solutions to water quality problems. They also both perceive that they disagree over solutions to problems of sedimentation. On land use planning citizens and planners held opposite perceptions of the amount of conflict. Planners see agreement, citizens see disagreement. In the area of waste disposal, planners see disagreement between themselves and citizens over solutions. Citizens see the opposite; agreement between citizens and planners. There is little consensus among planners or citizens as to whether or not there is conflict over general planning goals. Citizens to perceive slight agreement.

In the Platte study, planners and citizens only agree that there is some agreement on solutions to problems of water quality. On solutions to problems of irrigation, flood control, land use planning and recreation, planners see varying degrees of disagreement among planners and citizens. Citizens on the other hand see varying degrees of agreement.

The Long Island Sound study has citizens and planners disagreeing on solutions to problems in three of the five issue areas. In land use, waste disposal, and preservation of resources citizens perceive some agreement among citizens and planners over solutions. Planners see about the equal (except in land use) amount of disagreement over solutions. In water quality and recreation, planners and citizens perceive the same type of interaction: disagreement on solutions to recreation problems and agreement on solutions to water quality problems.

1240 RiSCOli

TABLE 2. A Comparison of the Perceptions of Citizens and Planners on the Nature of CitizenlPlanner Conflict Over Solutions to Key Water Resources Problems

in Four Level B Planning Studies

The Connecticut River Basin has three areas of citizen/planner agreement: water quality, flood control, and preservation of resources. In the area of water quality, they agree that there is a degree of agreement on solutions. In flood control and resource preservation, citizens and planners agree that they disagree. There is little feeling on either side as to whether or not conflict exists over land use planning. The only area of real disagreement is with solutions to recreation problems where planners see some agreement while citizens see disagreement.

With this understanding of the nature of the conflict between citizens and planners over solutions to key problems in water resource planning, the distribution of shared and nonshared perceptions, presented conceptually in figure 1, can be evaluated using actual data. Figure 4 displays the distribution of shared and nonshared perceptions for all four studies.

There are one and a half times more absence of shared perceptions than shared perceptions (12:8). Significantly, three-fourths of the absence of shared perceptions are cases of planner perceiving conflict while citizens perceive agreement. Finally, only one-fifth of all the cases of perceptual comparison fall into the category signifying agreement that conflict does not exist.

Citizen Advisory Groups and Conflict Resolution 1241

\ C I T I Z E N

P E R C E I V E S

0 N E F X L I I S C T T S

PLANNEn PEWJEIVES

I

c D (+I 0 0 N E E F S X L I I N S C O T T T

9

(ABSENCE OF SHARED

PEIIL3EpTIoN)

3

(SHARED PEIcEmIoN)

4

Figure 4. Actual Distribution of Shared and Nonshared Perceptions of Conflict Over Planning Problems for Four Level B Planning Studies.

SUMMARY

What do the results of figure 4 mean in terms of the argument that participation programs lead to understanding and consensus through the fostering of two-way communication? If one accepts the assertion that shared perceptions of participant conflict or agreement is necessary for consensus construction, the chart says a great deal.

First, more often than not planners and citizens have opposing views of their interactions. The only area where there is consistent shared perception of agreement is water quality. In land use there is a consistent shared perception of conflict. Otherwise, shared perception or its absence does not vary by issue or study.

Given the small number of shared perceptions of agreement over solutions to key water resources problems, the data do not support the hypothesis (andlor expection) that citizen advisory groups help enhance a flow of effective communication. Information might flow between citizen advisors and planners but that flow appears not t o translate into a common understanding. This finding questions the conflict resolving utility of citizen advisory groups within such planning studies. It also raises the spectre that participation programs might encourage citizen alienation from the planning process by simultaneously creating high expectations for and inhibiting communications. Explana- tions of these patterns must be sought elsewhere such as in Level B planning participants' behavior, Level B study organization, and citizen incentives to participate in Level B planning.

1242 Priscoli

Given these problems, the task of integrating public participation into the planning process is more difficult than it appears. It requires basic value judgments on the parts of both planners and citizen participants. Biswas (1973) notes that:

“Increased public participation is no panacea. . . . The public may be concerned with achieving short term individual and societal goals and objectives rather than long term (planning) goals. . . . The real question . . . are what goals . . . whose goals, and how have they been determined and who decides. . . . ”

LITERATURE CITED

Allee, David J., 1972. The Changing Role of the Water Resources Planner, Grass-Roots and Water Resources Management, ed. Linda McKenzie. Pullman: Water Research Center, Washington State University, No. 10, July.

Biswas, A. K., 1973. Socio-Economic Considerations in Water Resources Planning. Water Resources Bulletin 4:251, August.

Burke, R., J. P. Heaney 111, and E. E. Pyatt, 1973. Water Resources and Social Choice. Water Resources Bulletin 9:438, June.

Cook, H. N., Fall 1971. Nourishing Public Participation. Water Spectrum. Delli Priscoli, J., 1974. Public Participation in Regional Level B Water Resources Planning: A

Derryberry, 0. M., Winter 1972-73. Rudder for Resource Management. Water Spectrum. Fox, Irving and Lyman F. Wible, 1973. Information Generation and Communication to Establish

Environmental Quality Objectives. Natural Resources Journal 13: 147, January. Frauenglass, Harvey, 1973. Environmental Policy: Public Participation and the Open Information

System. Environmental Policy: Concepts and International Implications, ed. Albert E. Uttan and Daniel H. Henning, New York: Praeger.

Preliminary View. Water Resources Council, Washington, Special Consulting Report, October.

Havlick, Spencer, Fall-Winter 1970. The Construction of Trust. Water Spectrum. Ingram, Helen M., 1973. Information Channels and Environmental Decision Making. Natural

Lord, William B. and M. L Warner, Aggregates and Externalities: Information Needs for Public

Neal, A. T. Public Involvement in the Puget Sound and Adjunct Water Study. Grass-Roots. Sellevold, R. P. Public Involvement - The Corps of Engineers. Grass-Roots. Water Resources Council, 1969. The Nations Water Resources, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-9. Wenrich, J. W. Community Education for Participation in Water Resources Planning. Focus on

Change: Intergovernmental Relations and Water Resources, ed. J. A. Straayer, Fort Collins: Colorado State University.

Resources Journal 13:160, January.

Natural Resources Decision Making. Natural Resources Journal 13:113, January.

TECHNICAL NOTES

Ranking Method for Issre Area Importance

Each respondent was asked to rank the five most important issue areas. Issue areas were then ranked in importance by a weighing process. A fist position scored five and a fifth position scored one. Scores were then summed for all issue areas to obtain final ranking positions.

Citizen Advisory Groups and Conflict Resolution 1243

Consensus Perception Index Illustration

Platte River Level B. To illustrate how a CPI is derived, let us take the example of “Land Use Planning” issue area in the

CPI = (%A - %D) x ( y) Platte Planner CPI = (1 3% - 66%) x (w)

72% + 22% ) CPI = (72% - 22%) x ( 100 Platte Citizen

(.50) x (.94) = + .47

Data Base

Data are based on a mail survey, completed in Spring 1974, with the following overall response rates:

Planners Citizens - Maumee Platte LISS CRBP Average

82% n=18 55% n=16 85% n 4 8 53% n=27 54% n=58 44% n=l 1 67% n=31 57% n=l6 69% 11475 53% n=70