Public involvement methodsfor the

future development plansin the context ofsocial conflict

Triin Vihalemm, Asko Lõhmus, Maie Kiisel

Turku

13.06.2019

Long term planningamid social conflict

Challenge of the public authorities:

how to manage conflicting responsibilities

vis-à-vis present stakeholders,

consider the longer term sustainability goals(advocated by one part of stakeholders)

in the context of social turbulence?

What are working methods of organizingmeaningful participation?

2

Problem

setting

Long term planningamid social conflict

Complex and wicked problems (Rittel & Melvin1973)

Messy institutions for governance of wickedproblems (Verweij et al 2006, Ney & Verweij 2015)

vs Classical ladder of citizen participation(Arnstein 1969)

Sensemaking in organizations (Weick 1995, Weicket al 2005)

Social practice theory (Schatzky 1996, 2002)3

Theoretical

frame

Assuring the quality of information requires a democratisation of knowledge by engaging a wide plurality of stakeholders (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1997)

Epistemic diversity is normatively and cognitively strengthening deliberative process (clumsy solution)

Messy institutions are those proceduresfor engaging the extended peer community that creatively and flexiblycombine (---) four ways of generatingclumsy solutions that can be derivedfrom cultural theory (Ney & Verweij2015). 4

motive from fairy tale „12 months“ by S. Marshak

screenshot from cartoon film

(Ivanov-Vano & Botov 1956)

Messy institutions for clumsy solutions

5

Messy institutions for clumsy solutions by Ney & Werweij

Individualism Egalitarianism Hierachy Fatalism

Who contributes? Who wants Who is affectedDesignated by

experts/ auth.

Random

selection

How to motivate? Self interest / gain Outrage and solidarity Sense of duty No need

Division of tasksParticipants choose

on their ownAll tasks collectively

Allocated by

experts

Unsystemati

cally

Used informationSufficient individually

generated

Holistic, collectively

produced

Screened/

produced by

experts /auth.

Secretive

Agenda setting Individuals can add Group consensus Pre-set by experts Hidden

Decision makingCompetion; bargain;

compomising

Consensus via

empathy, listening

Synthesis by

experts

Un-

predictable

Forest and itsstakeholders in Estonia

6

forests cover 53.6% of total land area

old natural forests ca. 1%

state-owned forest land appr 26,5%

physical persons (7,7%) own about 1/3

80% of population

visits forests

38% pick berries

and mushrooms

Forestry gives

4-6% annual aded

value to economy

Private enterprises

own about 5% of the

land covered with

forest

7

Multiple responsibilities of the leader of the process

The administrative area

of the Ministry of the

Environment includes:

state-owned

foundations and

companies targeted to

earn profit

government agencies,

targeted to protect the

environment

organisations targeted

to research, collection

and analysis of data

Long term planningamid social conflict

Task Setting for the Estonian ForestryDevelopment Plan for 2030

Estonian Parliament has defined forestry as strategicbranch that requires long term planning (SFM and ForestEurope principles)

Earlier analyses (Kallas 2002, Sootla 2004, Urbel-Piirsalu & Bäcklund 2009, Teder & Kaimre 2018)

interview method, expert approach

low trust between stakeholders (Vihma 2018)

Current study: participant observation, media contentanalysis, semi-structured interviews / crowd-sourcing8

Empirical

case &

method

Moments from the film made by Theatre NO99 for

celebration of Estonian Republic 100

followed by 23% of total population

9

„Girl and the Harvester

Long term planningamid social conflict

Task Setting for the Estonian ForestryDevelopment Plan for 2030

Estonian Parliament has defined forestry as strategicbranch that requires long term planning (SFM and ForestEurope principles)

Earlier analyses (Kallas 2002, Sootla 2004, Urbel-Piirsalu & Bäcklund 2009, Teder & Kaimre 2018)

interview method, expert approach

low trust between stakeholders (Vihma 2018)

Current study: participant observation, media contentanalysis, semi-structured interviews / crowd-sourcing10

Empirical

case &

method

Methods ofstakeholder involvement

Working groups

ecology, economy, social & cultural aspects of forestry

representatives of stakeholders and academic experts

Methods

Problem charts for deliberation of problems

Consensus in the selection of problems

Voting of most prominent problems

Public involvement (outsourced)

Media analysis 11

Frame of

analysis

Deliberation is shaped by genre

1583 problems from crowd-sourcing

358 problems from media analysis, but the media brought more unique problems into discussion

6 clusters of participants in crowd-sourcing

„Matrjoshka“ from 3 clusters, on the basis of raised problems and ways of reflection

4 clusters of sense-making and forest-related practices

Consideration to recreational functions

Limiting clear cutting

Land ownership and stakeholder interactions

Economic and protection balance 12

Results

13Crowd- Media Working Prioriti-

sourcing analysis groups zation

Forest recources & Global carbon

cycles

Forests health & vitality

Forest productivity functions

Forests biological diversity

Protective functions (soil & water)

Socio-economic functions

Systemic problems of institutional

arrangement of governance and

participation & communication

14

Pot. model of messy institution for long term planning task setting

Individualism Egalitarianism Hierachy Fatalism

Who contributes? Who wants Who is affectedDesignated by

experts/ auth.

Random

selection

How to motivate? Self interest / gain Outrage and solidarity Sense of duty No need

Division of tasksParticipants choose

on their ownAll tasks collectively

Allocated by

experts

Unsystemati

cally

Used informationSufficient individually

generated

Holistic, collectively

produced

Screened/

produced by

experts /auth.

Secretive

Agenda setting Individuals can add Group consensus Pre-set by experts Hidden

Decision makingCompetion; bargain;

compomising

Consensus via

empathy, listening

Synthesis by

experts

Un-

predictable

Promising methods of involvement and

participation

Advocacy for the problem (instead of actors)

Delegated sensemaking (instead of delegated power)

Alternatives for consensus (clustering, tree-drawing, meta-analysis)

Powerful moderator

Considering the value of mediated deliberation (media analysis) 15

Conclusions

Thank you!

triin.vihalemm@ut.ee

IUT (20-38)

of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research

16