Introduction to Inclusive Collaboration

Background

This introduction to inclusive collaboration through community engagement and public participation is meant to: 1) brief Organon users on the value added to environmental management from engaging stakeholders in planning efforts; and 2) outline factors to consider when deciding how and when to engage local communities in the process. This short overview--made for project teams and decision-makers—is based on a selection of seminal resources from government agencies and other key institutions. More comprehensive resources can be found at the websites and reviews linked below.

Who is This For?

This information is for professionals who recognize the importance of stakeholder involvement but may not have specialized training in public participation or community engagement. It aims to bridge knowledge gaps by offering practical insights into effective strategies. Teams lacking expertise can review the guides and tools in this resource to increase their familiarity with public participation steps and concepts. They can also seek external support from consultancies, local academic institutions, and community leaders and organizations to enhance engagement efforts.

What is a Stakeholder?

Sometimes called "the public," the term stakeholder refers to any group or individual that has an interest or stake in an activity. Thus, a stakeholder is identified based on their ability to affect or be affected by the processes and/or outcomes of a project, policy, action, or issue. A non-exhaustive list of groups and individuals that may be considered stakeholders includes:

interested members of the public
Native American groups
private sector
interest groups
non-governmental organizations
government agencies
environmental scientists
local communities

"Community" refers to geographically bounded populations as well as potentially dispersed populations that share common concerns. Community stakeholders vary according to their interests, ability to affect decision-making, potential to experience benefits or harms, and geographic proximity to planning and outcomes of projects, policies, or programs.

Notably, the terms "community" and "stakeholder" imply equal rights for all interested parties, which disregards the special rights holder status of Native American groups and historical legacies of exclusion. Given such difficulties with these terms, it is important to be precise in each step of a project about who is being engaged. In many cases, the term "partners" or "rights holders," along with more specific group references, may be more appropriate.

Benefits of Public Participation

According to EPA's Public Participation Toolkit, meaningful public participation has two benefits:

Sponsor agencies will make better and more easily implementable decisions that reflect public interests and values and are better understood by the public.
Communities will develop long-term capacity to solve and manage challenging social issues, often overcoming longstanding differences and misunderstandings.

Public participation adds to scientific efforts with local knowledge and fosters a sense of community ownership over project planning and processes. This leads to more informed decision-making, wider acceptance of decisions, and increased project sustainability.

Levels of Public Participation

Once a project team decides to involve the public, they must determine the level of participation that is appropriate and the roles the public will play in the process. The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation and other sources present different levels (tiers) of public participation, categorized by increasing degrees of involvement and impact on decisions. Here, the various participation levels have been synthesized and condensed into three tiers: Consultation, Collaboration, and Co-Creation (Table 1).

The best practices developed for the Organon (see Organon Collaboration Best Practices) are aimed at the middle tier (Collaborate), which is an appropriate level for many environmental management projects. When considering this tier versus another, there are several factors for determining the appropriate level of public participation. These include project time, funding, and support constraints; community capacity (time, motivation, expertise, leadership, funding); and degree of project complexity. Table 1 provides an overview of the public participation tiers and determining factors for selection. Note that these tiers are not meant to be constraining; collaboration activities may fall between or across tiers.

Table 1. Levels of public participation, in order of increasing degrees of involvement.

Tier	Description	Promise to the Public	Determining Factors
Consultation	Public feedback on concerns is collected, and clear and timely information is provided to ensure good relations for potential collaborations.	We will keep you informed and consider your feedback.	Short timeframe Limited funding and/or administrative support Limited community capacity, or broad national or regional rather than context-specific focus Complexity of issue is less of a factor relative to other considerations
Collaboration	Active involvement and contributions of knowledge from public partners shape management strategies through workshops, forums, and deliberations.	We will collaboratively integrate your input into our planning.	Longer timeframe Sufficient funding and/or administrative support Sufficient community capacity Highly complex issue
Co-Creation	Public partners help define research questions, approach, and products as well as contribute to implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of results.	We will work with you in implementing your decisions on resource management.	Long timeframe Ample funding and/or administrative support Ample community capacity Less complexity and/or highly context specific issue

Important Considerations

It is critical to set realistic expectations and communicate clearly with public partners during the initial phases of engagement. Topics to communicate as early as possible include:

The goals, scope, and intended outcomes of the planning effort
Why public input is important to the process
How and when public input will be requested, and what it will be used for
How the public will be involved in decision-making processes
How and when the public will be able to receive results or updates and give feedback

Promoting open communication and transparency clears confusion, builds trust, and facilitates ongoing social acceptance of the process. This is particularly helpful where some phases of the process require less direct involvement by the public than others.

Inclusive Collaboration Resources

Bamzai-Dodson, A., A. E. Cravens, A. A. Wade, and R. A. McPherson, 2021: Engaging with Stakeholders to Produce Actionable Science: A Framework and Guidance. Weather. Climate, and Society. 13: 1027–1041, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0046.1.

Feurt, C. B. 2008. “Collaborative learning guide for ecosystem management.” Environmental Studies Faculty Publications. Paper 5. University of New England, Biddeford, Maine, USA. [online] URL: https://nerrssciencecollaborative.org/media/files/collaborative_learning_guide.pdf

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192675

Freeman, R.E, and J.A. McVea, 2001.” A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management”. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=263511 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511

IAP2. 2018. “IAP2’s public participation spectrum.” International Association for Public Participation (Online): https://iap2.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2018_IAP2_Spectrum.pdf

IxDF. 2021. “What is Human-Centered Design (HCD)?” Interaction Design Foundation - IxDF. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/human-centered-design

Meadow, A. M., D. B. Ferguson, Z. Guido, A. Horangic, G. Owen, and T. Wall. 2015. “Moving toward the Deliberate Coproduction of Climate Science Knowledge.” Weather, Climate, and Society. 7: 179–191, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1.

Meffe, G.K., L.A. Nielsen, R.L. Knight, and D.A. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

NIST. 2016. Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems, Volume I. NIST Special Publication 1190. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v1

NOAA. 2015. Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs: Introduction to Stakeholder Participation. National Ocean Service, Office of Coastal management. National Coastal Zone Management Program, Coral Reef Conservation Program, Digital Coast, and National Estuarine Research Reserve System. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/stakeholder-participation.pdf

Noya, A. and E. Clarence. 2009. “Community capacity building: fostering economic and social resilience. Project outline and proposed methodology”, 26-27 November 2009, working document, CFE/LEED, OECD, https://www.academia.edu/5608453/Community_capacity_building_fostering_economic_and_social_resilience

NRC. 1999. The Community Development Quota Program in Alaska and Lessons for the Western Pacific. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/6114/the-community-development-quota-program-in-alaska

Reed, M.S., Merkle, B.G., Cook, E.J. et al. 2024. “Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world.” Sustainability Science 19, 1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01496-4

Reid, H. 2024. “Learning from community-based natural resource management.” World Wide Fund for Nature. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/learning-community-based-natural-resource-management

Schiller, C., Winters, M., Hanson, H. M., and Ashe, M. C. 2013. “A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: a novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment.” BMC Public Health. 13: 428. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-428

USAID. 2020. Environmental and Natural Resource Management Framework. United States Agency for International Development. 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC 20004. https://www.usaid.gov/environment-energy-infrastructure/enrm-framework

USEPA. 2008. EPA’s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. United States Environmental Protection Agency 2201A Washington, DC 20460 EPA-300-R-06-002 www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice

USEPA. 2013. Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed. 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-11-001 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T) Washington, DC 20460. https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/stakeholderguide.pdf

USEPA. 2014. Being Prepared for Climate Change: A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based Adaptation Plans. Climate Ready Estuaries, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 4504T, Washington, DC 20460. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/being_prepared_workbook_508.pdf

USEPA. 2024. Public Participation Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of International and Tribal Affairs (2650R), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide

USGCRP. 2014: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. U.S. Global Change Research Program [Online] http://toolkit.climate.gov. Accessed 9/4/2024